Poker Bloggers News: I Feel (and Abuse?) the Power
Maybe I’ve been looking at the whole lack of creativity on the poker news front all wrong. Sure I was pissed when a site snagged all the ideas out of an election piece I spent days preparing. But I hadn’t really contemplated “the power” until today. Sensing that there’s been a little less fun out there on the poker news front since the passage of the UIGEA, I did a little piece on pokernews about the upcoming WPBT and ESCARGOT gatherings. Apparently poker bloggers are newsworthy as the same writer picked up this. Poker bloggers rock! I wonder if there are going to be tv film crews. But all in all, the promotional power of content, aided and abetted by the lack of creativity on the web, is awe inspiring. I think if I copied more people on my submissions to pokernews I could speed up the process.
Pot Calling Kettle Black Alert: I’m not completely lilly white on the copyright laws; although I try. I don’t think I have a downloaded song that I didn’t pay for and since I worked in the computer/software industry, I bought what I have on that front. On content, I mostly link and credit rather than reproduce. All the player images are my own. I also use promotional photos (which I have assumed people want used, ie Pam Anderson et al). And I do use a lot of .gov pics (like the one I altered above), because I technically feel like I paid for them. I don’t use images that people are selling or marketing. BUT…I also have included other images that I need to be clearer about sourcing and crediting. So I will be adding photo credits to the bottom of my posts - and over time I’ll be editing past posts to do the same.
Speaking of the power, I let loose a search engine frenzy by mentioning the one “crotch shot” searcher the other day. It is now my number one search phrase. I can’t decide if I am doomed or blessed. Should I die in traffic whore hell for pandering to the crotch shot challenged - who appear to be many? More importantly, has Pauly locked up all the “crack whore” surfers?
This is actually leading me to my next and almost legitimate set of questions: What are all you bloggers doing for SEO on your blogs. As a newbie Wordpress blogger, I’m a little slow on the SEO uptake with this format. Is anyone using a meta tag keyword plug-in they particularly like? Do you consciously think about traffic when you choose titles or categories? What is the most ridiculous thing someone has found your blog with? Have you ever included silly topics or words in your content just to see if someone would actually search for it? And if you actually give me your answers at the WPBT, will I remember?
Image Credits:
Tornado (altered):
http://www.nasa.gov/lb/vision/earth/environment/index.html
Lilly:
http://www.101-flower-bulbs.com/Lilly-flower-bulbs.htm
Little Engine That Could cover:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~plotnick/littleng.htm
Anything the federal government creates (photos, reports, etc.) is legally in the public domain. The federal government can’t copyright. (But they can classify, and there’s a whole section of First Amendment law dealing with the differences.)
For example, you can use ANY image that NASA has ever taken, and you don’t need permission, and you don’t need to source it. (Although proper sourcing is good journalism even when it’s not legally required.) You could print and sell your own calendar of beautiful space images from the Hubble Telescope, and that would be perfectly legal.
You could reprint the entire Starr Report on President Clinton, or the entire report from the 9/11 commission on your blog, and it’s perfectly legal. That’s why you can buy printed copies of those reports (some people call them “books”) relatively cheap.
It might be assuming too much to say you can take content from any .gov website, however. But if it’s a legitimate government website, and *they’re* not sourcing the photo, then you’ll probably be safe.
Ultimately, since you’re not really profiting from these images (or profiting much), the worst they could really do is ask you to remove any copyrighted images, and you could use that opportunity to remind them to source those same photos on their own sites.
BJ Nemeth said this on December 2nd, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Well, this may end up helping advance your SEO education
See, I own PokerFilter. The idea behind the site is to hand pick content that is of interest to the poker playing public and highlight on one site. In many ways you could think about it in the same way as sites like Digg, Slashdot, Metafilter (strangely similar name, eh?), Fark, etc.
I have always quoted just enough to give context and to perhaps create enough interest so people will want to click through and read the article on the author’s original site. Unfortunately, many other sites simply rip the RSS feed and repost the material often with little or no credit being given the source. Thus it’s understandable that people might be a tad more sensitive when they see their work quoted. I feel that how the content is used is well within fair use guidelines. Of course, there are no hard rules about what is and is not fair use so you are always free to disagree and I am more than happy to take down the content and discontinue linking and helping promote that content. In the year and a half the site has been up, I’ve yet to have a single author or website ask that I discontinue linking to their content. In fact, I often get thank you emails from little known bloggers who appreciate having their work recognized and for the traffic being sent their way. Of course, as I said, one only need to say the word and all references to their content will be removed from the site.
But, my intent is twofold. First, to direct people to high quality content. Second, PokerFilter is a Page Rank 5 site. A PR of 5 is pretty high for a non-corporate site. And when Google sees a PR 5 site linking to another site it tends to rank that other site higher. So, again, the hope is that by directing readers to the target site as well as giving the site some additional search-cred that quality postings will be recognized both by readers as well as searchers.
Now, you did send me an email in which you took me to task for not specifically giving you credit as the author. That is true. I don’t credit the author, I credit the website that has made the content available and the website has the responsibility to provide the author the proper credit. It shouldn’t be my responsibility to figure out what your contractual agreements are with PokerNews. Just as in your image credits on this site, you credit UIC.edu for the Little Engine That Could cover but you fail to credit the illustrator who created that cover. Perhaps the illustrator has reserved some rights that you are unaware of. Heck, are you even sure that UIC has received clearance to use those images?
Bill Rini said this on December 2nd, 2006 at 5:06 pm
A kinder, gentler Amy with photo credits, say it ain’t so Margie, say it ain’t so.
PokerShrink said this on December 2nd, 2006 at 7:35 pm
I’m pretty clueless about SEO. I had to ask Iggy what that stood for last week!
gracie said this on December 2nd, 2006 at 7:45 pm
OK. I confess I\’ve been totally freaked out by some sites that have borrowed liberally from my shit lately. And I probably should never have posted this morning before my second cup of coffee. If someone doesn\’t link or credit, and does a feeble re-write, they should die a thousand deaths. If someone excerpts my stuff AND provides a link, I should be pleased as punch my client is getting hits. And I guess as a flaming liberal it was probably a GOOD thing the blogger at National Review didn\’t credit me personally.
I will now try extracting my paranoid head out of my ass - and edit my post accordingly.
And I chose that particular cover art for The Little Engine that Could image because the source site did credit the illustrator. And while I would have to check the ever changing Copyright laws, I chose the original 1930 artwork as I suspected that it might actually be public domain at this point. But point taken…thanks.
Amy said this on December 2nd, 2006 at 8:17 pm