June 12, 2008

The Dangers of Content Development

by Brian Turner

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thank you for visiting!

Last month I had to settle £8k over copyright infringement. This week my solicitors are taking against action against Google for defamation.

There are risks and liabilities with every content development model everyone needs to be aware of.

Types of content development

No matter what sort of site you publish, whether a forum, a portal, a blog, a news section, or reviews, content development broadly comes under three forms:

1. Editorial
2. User Generated Content (UGC)
3. Automated content

As a general rule of thumb you’d expect editorially generated content to be the highest quality - and safest - by comparison to the other approaches.

Certainly that’s true to a certain extent, but there are still some very basic - but potentially very expensive - pitfalls that can affect every level of content development:

1. Copyright violation

$Pirates aren\'t always as cute$

Anyone who has used a forum or similar community environment will be all too aware of how often articles in their entirety are commonly copied across UGC sites.

However, it can even happen where the content is editorially driven.

I had to settle a dispute with another company last month that cost me £8,000 (approx $15,000) - and this was editorially approved content.

The problem was poor editorial controls - writers posted without supervisory checks being made. It only took one writer to post four stories lifted direct from another site to cause a legal dispute that cost thousands.

Being clearly in the wrong there was no way to turn the issue to my company interests - sloppy writing, sloppy editorial, makes for sloppy publishing practice you cannot publicise and expect to get something positive out of, unless you’re running a model outside of traditional publishing methods.

Ironically enough my own solicitors had apparently suffered the same issue themselves with a “rogue journalist” a few years previously.

Bottom line is - copyright violations are unfortunately easy to fall foul of, and even basic editorial controls cannot always stop them entirely. Yet they can be costly to resolve.

Solution: Have strong editorial controls from the start.

It doesn’t matter whether you are publishing articles, reviews, news or views - you need cast iron editorial controls in place from the beginning of the process.

That means a clear brief to writers that they must avoid plagiarism, be held liable for claims, and then a level of editorial above them that can double check that such guidelines are being adhered to.

2. Defamation

Defamation is the making of statements likely to damage reputation. In business terms, the ability to adversely impact the revenues of a business through falsehood.

Libel is the written form of defamation (slander is verbal), and uniquely in the UK legal system, you are guilty of libel until proven otherwise.

Good faith has nothing to do with it - if you publish something that may be libellous, it is up to you to prove that the libellous allegations are true.

And if you are in the UK, then as the publisher a precedent has already been established that you are legally liable for what you publish - even if made by third party commentators.

Of course, if you can be held to be adversely impacting the revenues of another business then the settlement can be much higher than with a copyright action.

I’ve now been at both sides of this fence regarding libel proceedings - running a number of forums means it’s a constant danger, and I’ve received a number of email, telephone, and postal communications highlighting my liabilities in this area.

Heck, this site is its own individual company, formed precisely to help fend off a potential libel suit at this site a couple of years ago, resolved only by my having to step down and apologise for my naivety.

Now I’m forced to pursue a libel action myself - against Google of all companies - because they publish editorially approved but unfounded and libellous comments against some of my business interests.

I have to say I’m not looking to sue Google directly - my business interests are tied in with Google - but I will have to take out a court order against Google in order to recover details of the advertiser involved so that action can be directed against them.

Solution: Editorial controls need to be in place to ensure all references to companies and individuals do not include allegations not already substantiated in the public domain.

Forums are especially bad - I’ve been threatened with a string of libel actions over comments posted in my forums over the years. Usually it’s because I’ve not been quick enough to moderate them, and usually such comments are removed directly.

However, threats of libel are clearly used by some companies as a means of repressing customer complaints.

Therefore if you do find that customer complaints are being posted against another company then you will need to ensure that you decide quickly if this is a fight you really want to take on.

While internet communities hate feeling that they are censored, good communities look to see their community protected against threats, and if that means standing down from fighting other people’s battles, then so be it.

3. Damages

This is not one I’ve seen directly, but I’ve certainly seen the potential for it.

I remember once looking to buy a software product and visiting the company’s forums.

The first post in the forum was political spam about the Iraq War, that included graphic images of American war dead.

While it may not give me nightmares, I will certainly never forget the photo of one US Marine - a tongue and remains of the lower jaw the only clue that the vacuous red hole I was looking at was where his face should have been.

It was unpleasant in every regard, and if a sensitive enough person saw it, certainly grounds for legal action claiming damages for distress.

Again, UGC can be the main danger area, especially where politics is allowed to be expressed, because unless you have clear moderation controls in place you can expect nothing better than graphic images of aborted foetuses, animal cruelty, and the most disgusting sexual extremism.

I’ve had to remove them all from my forums when posted by members - especially new members with their own agendas.

UGC posting will often test editorial boundaries, so you need to ensure such boundaries are in play from the start.

Solution: Again, proper editorial controls are required, and where the site is UGC, a proper implementation of a moderation strategy and clear rules on what may not be posted to the site.

A large and active moderator team, especially covering different time zones, can be essential with UGC sites, and I’ve previously posted tips on building a moderator team before: Choosing forum moderators as well as moderator guidelines.

Overall

The dangers of content development are very real but can be minimised by having proper managerial control of your publishing strategy.

If you publish your own paid for content then you need two levels: writing and editorial, and ensure both are clear on what their responsibilities are.

If you publish UGC content then in the UK you certainly still need an editorial level, even if only served through a team of volunteer moderators. Editorial control comes not simply through empowering moderators as much as making clear to them what is and is not acceptable.

I haven’t mentioned much about automated content, even though it’s on my list of types - namely because by its very nature, there is an abrogation of editorial control in the first place.

And when it comes to developing a publishing strategy, that is probably the one responsibility you need to have the fullest control over.

Discuss this in the Internet Business forums

Story link: The Dangers of Content Development

Add to Bookmarks: