RE: Apology post Regarding some of my content.

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

Apology post Regarding some of my content.

in honest •  2 years ago

Upvoting this so the community can weigh in on whether or not this user should continue to be blacklisted for fraud.
I encourage you to also list which posts you paid for, and where your posts were taken from / who the original author was.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Here's my take on it: I am a content creator and I have ghostwritten pieces for other people who have claimed it as theirs - lock, stock and barrel. ***It was a mutual agreement between ghostwriter and "author". ***
In my case, I signed NDAs (non-disclosure agreements) and will never stake claim to any future profits from that work because I was paid in advance. The person paying for it really takes the risk of earning more - or losing money on the deal. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying that it's done in the mainstream by authors and website owners ALL THE TIME.

Again, it's between the person paying and the person ghostwriting - and IMHO, not the business of the readers. I personally do not think apologies or listing those posts are necessary. BUT - should anyone decide to pay for a ghostwriter, I recommend 3 things: 1. run their paid content through a plagiarism checker first to see that they're not being swindled - 2. to make sure the content is unique - 3. Get that NDA signed!

·

Thanks for the input. In this case, I am currently under the impression that there was no agreement about the use of the articles, and the original authors were under the impression that carlidos bought them for consumption.

·
·

Yes. There is a big difference between purchasing intellectual property, (ie. ghostwriter > signs NDA > gets paid > walks away happy = buyer has fully copyright usage) and plagiarism, (ie. buyer > buys book "consumption"> claims it's theirs > reproduces it in any form without citation).
The former is really no one's business but that between seller & buyer. The latter is a serious offense.
So, which is it @carlidos?

·
·
·

I have full rights of the articles, as stated I paid for them to be written for me.
@anxy why would you think otherwise? What gave you that impression? You didn't even talk to me beforehand as stated before you banned me with out actually speaking to me.

so @merej99 to answer your question Yes I have full rights of the articles, there was no need to state that in the posts at all, again restating why I said I bought articles to use for my own, just as online news media do.

I wrote this post because I felt I was misleading and also wanted to clarify the bashing that was sent towards me.

·
·
·
·

I only have a small voice, @carlidos, but I personally do not have a problem with this practice. As you've mentioned, it is acceptable in news wires where SP, Reuters, PR, Bloomberg, etc. are the sources, but newspapers worldwide pay for their content. It's even acceptable for published authors to find a ghostwriter who has the same style to help write their book especially with a pending deadline. Hopefully others will see reason and leave you be.

·
·
·
·

Because looking at the articles in question, they appear to have zero buyers. It is unclear if this means he has the license to redistribute for profit.

Ive heard of this happening alot on steemit, people are paying to have all their stuff done for them. I myself cant afford to do these things, nor would i want to! But is it ok for people to do it, if they actually wrote most of it, but paid someone to writs it better?! I mean where do we draw the line here?!

·

Personally, I look for (a) transparency, and (b) professionalism. If someone wants to pay a great writer, photographer, designer, etc. to make their posts into top-notch media products, that's awesome ... as long as it is clear that this is what is going on.

Taking everything before this into consideration, this apology comes across as a "Sorry I got caught" last ditch effort.

@carlidos did you pay an actual ghostwriter to write the pieces exclusively for you or did you buy a package of articles with attached rights like PLR? There is a big difference between the two. While you do have the right to publish PLR, they are not work that is only going to be published in once place. Hiring a ghostwriter, well, if the work is unique to this site only, I don't have a problem with it if you're crazy enough to pay for an article that may or may not get a return. It's your funeral with the current level of payouts

·
·
·

exclusive for you and this site??

·
·
·

This is the question that is currently un-answered. The response "Exclusively for me." is suggesting that the author provided calidos with the article for his consumption, and the author was unaware it would be reproduced for profit on steemit.

·
·
·
·

If he's purchased the article and written exclusively for him then he has the rights to it and can use it where he wants. If he's only used it here then this shouldn't be an issue. As I've seen plenty of times. If he uses it on another site where he owns access to like a blog he just needs to post on there indicating that he also posts on Steemit to show he's the owner of the other property.

there is one other question that comes to mind here.. if this was written for you, how did anyone even know the difference? did some of the content show up elsewhere?

·
·
·
·

This has been answered plenty times man, I purchased the article and all the rights to the article. If I purchased the rights to the article that means I can do what I want with it. Does not matter what I do with it because its mine full rights. All rights from the author are given up because I purchased them. How more clear do you want me to be?

FYI this turned up on the subreddit today mentioning you and this post :
https://www.reddit.com/r/steemit/comments/576eqs/carlidos_apology_on_steemit_is_fake_content

·

Damn this is getting really ridiculous. "[–]SteemitStealsContent[S] 1 point 4 hours ago

When Anyx calls out Carlidos on his stolen content (highlighted comment) https://steemit.com/honest/@carlidos/apology-post-regarding-some-of-my-content#@anyx/re-carlidos-re-merej99-re-anyx-re-merej99-re-anyx-re-carlidos-apology-post-regarding-some-of-my-content-20161012t212428931z

Anyx KNOWS the content is stolen and there is no way Carlidos can prove he paid for it. Now he's just giving Carlidos enough rope to hang himself.

permalinkembed

[–]SteemitStealsContent[S] 1 point 39 minutes ago

This latest comment by Anyx shows that he still doesn't grasp Carlidos' theft. The articles were not "provided" to Carlidos - he stole them. There was no discussion/agreement as to end use; the content was stolen without the writers' knowledge. https://steemit.com/honest/@carlidos/apology-post-regarding-some-of-my-content#@anyx/re-shadowspub-re-carlidos-re-shadowspub-re-anyx-re-carlidos-apology-post-regarding-some-of-my-content-20161013t010033362z"

·
·

I don't know who that is (seems like someone angry at steemit), but they do have a point. If you can DM me in steemit.chat some receipts of purchase and the associated licence (and assuming it's the correct licence) I can un-cheetah you.

blacklist him (her?)
he/she still keeps flagging my posts although apologized yesterday in the channel. Obviously this user cannot be trusted.

·

I have apologized yesterday and Have not been flagging.

·
·
·
·
·

Ohh yea makeing a post about links is really not informative, but other than that have not flagged you. Seems as you are emotional buddy already apologized, I know you like being a dictator but let it go.

·
·
·
·

@anyx
As I mentioned. Manipulative, compulsive liar.