33 replies to this topic

[madams]

If it was ilegal to copy keywords nearly everone on this forum would be sued.

Why, because the Brown Widgit, Blue Widgit and Yellow Widgit company would be taking action.



It is nataural to have the same, or practicly the same keywords if you are in the same business or you sell the same product as other companies.

I wanted to know if it was OK to copy a competitors keyword structure.

Why, make up your own. They may be the same or different. They may do better than your competitors.

By all means check what your competitors are doing. This is totaly ok. It´s called reserch.

[Randy]

Legalities aside, can I just point out that if you limit yourself to copying from a competitor you're also painting yourself into a box? If all you do is copy someone else the most your site can ever be expected to do is maybe be #2 because the others guys have a head start on you. And you'll never be targeting anything other than what they have. So your SEO and business will never stand a chance of doing any better than theirs.

A dangerous prospect that. Pinning your hopes on the work someone else has done and praying that they've actually done their homework is simply a bad business plan. Most don't know what they're doing, so you're placing some severe limits on your potential IMO.

Can you use what your competitors have done as part of your research? Sure. I think everybody does to some level, just to see what's being done out there.

But do not let it stop at simply copying. You have no way of knowing if their methods really work or if they have a clue what they're doing. The goal is to be Better, not simply to copy your way to second best.

[legalguy]

If it was ilegal to copy keywords nearly everone on this forum would be sued.

Why, because the Brown Widgit, Blue Widgit and Yellow Widgit company would be taking action.



It is nataural to have the same, or practicly the same keywords if you are in the same business or you sell the same product as other companies.
Why, make up your own. They may be the same or different. They may do better than your competitors.

By all means check what your competitors are doing. This is totaly ok. It´s called reserch.

I agree.

It is not only natural; the available tools encourage people to go after many of the same keywords. People use Wordtracker and Keyword Discovery to get lists of frequent searched keywords. It is logical to go after those words and phrases.

I wouldn't be worried about your rear getting fried. I go up against big, prominent law firms all the time. They operate under the same rules and concepts that I do. You cannot legally protect common, everyday, non-unique sequences of words.

It appears to me that the bulk of seo companies offer the same exact thing - with the same exact promises. Why would there be room for all of those companies if duplication was a futile strategy? Copy and improve - that is the way of the entrepreneur.

[jehochman]

If you copy somebody's meta tags verbatim, that's theft. What am I missing here?

[Jill]

It is not only natural; the available tools encourage people to go after many of the same keywords.

It has nothing to do with going after the same keywords. It has to do with copying people's original written works. Pretty simple. Again, I'm not an attorney, but it sounds like copyright infringement to me. I'm sure there are some precendents around on this if any attorney wants to look into it to know for sure.

All I know is that I for one would be a wee bit scared of being sued if I were copying any part of anyone's page verbatim.

[legalguy]

All I know is that I for one would be a wee bit scared of being sued if I were copying any part of anyone's page verbatim.

No one said anything about an entire page - verbatim. Meta tags are the issue. Meta tags are rarely if ever unique and original. I would be surprised if there is a precedent, where someone prevailed in a lawsuit on meta tag infringement. Until someone presents a precedent - there is no precedent.

[Jill]

Meta keyword tags? Or Title tags, Meta Description tags and Meta keyword tags?

There's a huge difference.

If someone copied all three exactly, that's enough for me to start thinking copyright infringement. Again, an copyright attorney would be the one to ask.

[Randy]

Until someone presents a precedent - there is no precedent.

Well, you're a legal guy, right?

FWIW, the original question wasn't just about Meta Keywords. It included page Titles, Meta Description and Meta Keywords.

Beyond that, I can tell you for a fact that DMCA complaints have been honored by both the search engines and by hosts where information only appears in the Meta Keywords or Meta Description tags. It's an even easier call when some idiot (for lack of a kinder phrasing) puts someone elses trademarked brand name in either of these Meta locations so that it doesn't show in the visible text on the page, or worse yet bids on the trademarked brand via Adwords, etc. Cut and dried in that case.

But there have also been cases where blatant copies of just the Meta information have triggered a DMCA complaint and removal. Throwing in copying of the Title tag makes it easier to roast and toast because it's clear what someone is up to.

In fact, one from earlier this year that comes to mind immediately was the case in federal court filed by the owners of Amish.net against AmishTimes.com and its owners. There was a bit more going on there if memory serves, but a major part of the suit was copying Meta Keywords and Descriptions, as well as the page Titles and some structure.

Not only did the plaintiff win monetary damages, but they now also own the offenders domain name too!

Check it out. If memory serves it was filed in the US District Court in Santa Ana, CA. So the case and it's dispensation should be available public record.

[Jill]

puts someone elses trademarked brand name in either of these Meta locations so that it doesn't show in the visible text on the page, or worse yet bids on the trademarked brand via Adwords, etc. Cut and dried in that case.

We're getting off topic here, but actually, Randy, it's not so cut and dry. Google allows you to bid on others brand names for your PPC keywords. And if one is using the trademarked terms only in the keyword meta tags, since it's not going to help the page actually show up for that phrase in the search results (assuming there are tons of pages using the phrase in places that get weighted more), then it may or may not be considered trademark infringement. I think initial consumer interest confusion needs to be proven.

[projectphp]

The debate "how much copying is allowed" is a spurious one. You can be sued for copying one word, or one common hook. "Ice, Ice Baby" anyone?

Besides which, walking down that road is silly. Why do you want to be an inferior copy? Why not be a better original?

[mcanerin]

First and foremost, copyright law does not apply to words or data, it applies to the human ingenuity that puts them together in a creative manner. Trademark and patent law are different animals, but they do not seem to be an issue here.

The example of "Ice Ice Baby" is more likely to be a trademark than a copyright issue. It's indicative of an artist, but is too short to qualify for copyright protection.

Enough background. IMO, page header data (title and metadata in this context) are not protected under copyright law. Sorry. The keywords list is obviously out, since it's a list of keywords. If the ingredients of a recipe can't be copyrighted, keywords certainly can't be.

This leaves the description and the title.

I'll quote part of the US copyright Act on things that can't be copyrighted. These limitations also apply to most other countries under the Berne Convention and under the Common law.

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

Source: http://www.copyright...ircs/circ1.html

It's clear from the context that this would also apply to the title of a webpage ("Titles") and the description ("short phrases, and slogans").

So it's not protected. There are a lot of things that surprise people about copyright law, and this is one of them. Another is that if you make a couple of changes to a valid copyrighted work, the copyright doesn't disappear. Copyright is weaker than many copyright holders think, and much stronger than many copyright violators think.

But that doesn't mean it's a good idea. Just because someone is doing well in the SERPs doesn't mean it's because of their metatags! Far from it. By copying their header information, you are far more likely to run afoul of a search engine duplication filter than the law, but I'm not sure that's any better from a business standpoint. It can take years to get a legal ruling and be forced to remove something, but being knocked off the SERPs by a search engine can take minutes.

It's not illegal. It's just not a good idea. Also, and this is a personal observation - it just seems slimy and underhanded, you know? I'm not trying to be insulting, but by definition you can't get ahead of an original by copying them. You have to surpass them. This means unique content of your own. By copying them it just feels like the plan is to leech off of someone else's hard work.

Feel free to learn from their header set up - that's good business. I do a competition analysis on all my clients' competitors myself. But the goal is to beat them, not to try to be them.

Ian

Edited by mcanerin, 17 December 2006 - 11:08 PM.

[projectphp]

Well, that is useful info! Nice one Ian.

I would say that, with titles, the "limitted solutions" problem also applies. There aren't many ways are to say {PRODUCT NAME} {BRAND} for sale, and it is totally reasonable for two sites to have identical titles with no copying at all.

Still, copying is a bad idea, especially with the Google snippet filter. Unique is always better, even for titles and descriptions.

[Jill]

Thanks for clearing that up, Ian!

[Smarts]

I wanted to know if it was OK to copy a competitors keyword structure.

I don't think it's fair to do this, I write from expereince here from selling a site once owned with another two people a couple of months ago partner ship ended.

A key word is currently being copeid by my ex-partners in regards to a forum I still have possesion "own & run" and did not sell this other site to them which "the key word is being used now by them" which is my copy right. Mind you am using this other sites "keyword on my "new" site also without guilt due to having legal rights to this key word.

So having said this I didn't need to see on here that my copy right is being infringed "BUT" confirms it all along.

I agree with Ian’s statements here.

Feel free to learn from their header set up - that's good business. I do a competition analysis on all my clients' competitors myself. But the goal is to beat them, not to try to be them.

I may now take action, great read

Smarts.

[jehochman]

Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans;

Fair enough. But I would argue that a two sentence description is more than a "short phrase." What if somebody copies the meta tags from 20 pages. Now they've take 20X as much stuff, maybe 50 sentences total. Does that qualify as a copyright violation?