How to deal with Plagiarism and Online Content Theft

Posted by on , in Category General with Tags
Anand Khanse is the Admin of, a 10-year Microsoft MVP Awardee in Windows (2006-16) & a Windows Insider MVP. Please read the entire post & the comments first, create a System Restore Point before making any changes to your system & be careful about any 3rd-party offers while installing freeware.


  1. Great article. I create many of the movie posters you see for motion pictures and I’ve had my work stolen so many times. This includes people passing off my artwork as their own, using the artwork on websites, blogs Facebook without my (or the movie networks) permission, uploading the artwork to wallpaper sites. It’s a nightmare, but fortunately I have network/studio lawyers that deal with all the legal stuff.

    What I have learned over the years is that copyright is tricky and I do have to mention that there are other countries outside of the USA in which much of this wouldn’t work. For instance, any infringement stored on a UK server is not subject to the USA’s DMCA and is useless ( as it is also in many other countries. To takedown content stored in the UK from outside the UK is also pretty expensive ($200-$300 per takedown) and not to mention court fees should the case end up there.

    Copyright and IP laws differ in ever country. In reality, sometimes it’s very hard to prove ownership of certain works and we have seen many copyright requests denied and poor man’s copyright is no longer accepted in many courts of law.

    There is also Fair Use. Again every country has this and a fair use limit. Fair Use is now becoming very popular on YouTUBE to prevent or fight copyright claims and many people are winning.

    On the internet, when it comes to copyright, the internet seems to be all American. American law only covers American continents. The only international copyright/IP is again Fair Use and if this fails then it’s up to the countries courts to decide.

    I create many of the movie posters you see for motion pictures and I’ve had my work stolen so many times. This includes people passing off my artwork as their own, using the artwork on websites, blogs Facebook without my (or the movie networks) permission, uploading the artwork to wallpaper sites. It’s a nightmare, but fortunately I have network/studio lawyers that deal with all the legal stuff.

    Again, great article.

  2. Thanks for a great comment!

  3. Anonymous

    Is Mr. Khanse aware that some of the tools and utilities made by The Windows Club contain copyrighted tools/code stolen from other utilities? e.g. I found “Ave’s Vista apps” inside some of your tools. The developers you hire for TWC are stealing copyrighted code or tools and packaging them inside your tool EXEs. I just thought I should bring this to your attention.

  4. I’m not sure where to begin with this comment of yours, @Michael Knight. It’s filled with… well… not so much misinformation as it is filled with your misunderstanding… and that’s okay. Like you said, the studio/network lawyers are who normally handle such things.

    Intelluctual Property (IP) law is a broad category of law which includes copyright and trademark and a number of other areas. This article, and more of what you are talking about than perhaps you realize, deals only with copyright law.

    Yes, copyright law is by country; but there are reciprocal agreements between countries which make certain aspects of the copyright law of one country operable in other countries. There is even outright reciprocity, in some cases.

    DMCA is a much overused term, and highly misunderstood thing; and has little to do with what you’re really talking about, here. It is largely a specification which updates traditional copyright law to take into consideration the Internet; adds an International component; and chiefly sets forth the limitations of liability for the Internet Service Provider (ISP) when one of his/her clients violates copyright law.

    As to your stated difficulty of proving ownership: When US copyright law was changed so that one needn’t register a work any longer to still receive full benefits of copyright, many copyright holders wrongly interpreted that to mean that they no longer needed to formally register. That was a mistake. Registering one’s ownership of something by filing the appropriate formal copyright form…

    SEE | (US Copyright Office forms site)

    …can go a long way toward protecting a copyright holder’s rights and formally establishing ownership. This is especially true for unpublished works; but I have long recommended that *ALL* works be registered.

    I am deeply involved in what’s called the “folk” music scene, but what it really is, for me, is mostly independent singer-songwriter and indigenous music; and I’ve been a both concern promotor, and editor a folk newsletter, and performer, and yadda, yadda, yadda. Back in the late ’90s I was in a forum (actually, I think it was an email list) where such performers hang-out, and I made the argument that I’m making here about how they should all copyright their stuff; and they asked me how, so I downloaded the correct “SR” form from the US Copyright Office website, and uploaded it to one of my servers for them to then download. I did it that way because back then, the PDF forms were not on-screen fillable; and so I made that one fillable (now they’re all fillable right from the copyright office); and that, in turn caused a couple of performers to keep a copy on their websites for others to download, etc. I think if you Google my name and the phrase “copyright form” you’ll hit one on… I think it’s Del Sugg’s website, right out of the gate.

    Anyway, my point is that every holder of copyrighted material is, in my opinion, a fool to not formally copyright it with the US federal government… especially if it’s not published anywhere (since publishing goes a long way toward establishing copyright, though isn’t anywhere near as good as formally filing). Yes, merely putting the standard copyright notice on the work, for example…

    – Copyright © 2014 by Gregg L. DesElms –
    All rights reserved. Use by permission only.

    …will, in and of itself, establish both the existence and notice of copyright, under the law; but it’s still nowhere *NEAR* as good as formally registering the copyright with the proper form and the relatively small fee. Courts of Law usually go by that just facially, the same as a WIPO hearing judge goes by trademark date, almost to the exclsion of all else.

    “Fair Use” is neither new, nor is it its own law. It has been around forever, and is quite simply a mere component — a “doctrine,” actually; known as “the fair use doctrine” — of long-established traditional copyright law which sets forth the very limited circumstances under which an entity may use small parts of copyrighted material, even without the copyright holder’s permission, or even against his/her will. It derives from a combination of statutory and case law (hence at least part of why it has become “doctrine”).

    Just calling the use of copyrighted material “fair use,” though, does not mean that it is. And contrary to how you’ve made it sound, “fair use” claims routinely fall when the copyright holder gets deadly serious about prosecuting it, in largest measure because the “fair user” often overreaches. Pursuant to the totality of the “fair use doctrine” so-called “fair use” is very narrowly defined with regard to what can be used and under what circumstances. It is very easy for the user of the copyrighted materials, who claims “fair use” to go too far and run afoul of copyright law…

    …and trust me when I tell you that the vast majority of what YouTube account holders often claim as “fair use” is, in fact, not. They simply believe that by claiming it, they can either get away with what they’re doing, or will sufficiently intimidate the copyright holder that s/he will not pursue it. What actually happens, though, in such cases, is that the copyright holder weighs the cost of pursuing the matter against the ultimate benefit, and they just shrug it off. This gives the infringer the wrong-headed notion that his/her fair use claim worked, and serves to empower them. Other infringers see that and thing it’s how the law works; and next thing you know, tons of people on YouTube are infringing, claiming fair use, and they’re wrong. I see it every single day; and I can show you seemingly countless examples.

    The only people who actually win fair use arguments are those who carefully and strictly comply with what the doctrine now defines as “fair use.” And some types of fair use are so facially obviously correctly compliant with the fair use doctrine that it’s difficult for the copyright holder to even legally pursue the matter. The problem for the copyright holder is exacerbated by Google policies regarding fair use which effectively discourage the copyright holder from pursuing the matter; but Google does that for the combination of reasons that, first, it secretly actually wants the content there, to drive users to the YouTube site; and, also, second, that it doesn’t want to endure the expense of its involvement in any fair use litigation.

    Copyright holders should not, though, interpret that to mean that it’s no longer worth it to pursue copyright infringement prosecution; and, moreover, a copyright holder’s faire to so do can set precedent which can inure to the benefit of future infringers… sort of pursuant to a “use it or lose it” kind of thing wherein if one does not jealously guard one’s copyrights (and especially trademarks), and sets that precedent, then it can become more difficult to protect the copyrighted material in future actions.

    As to “American law only covers American continents,” [sigh] where to start. We are the United States of America, with “America” being the North American continent (which includes Canada, the United States, and Mexico). There is no country called “America;” and copyright law is country-by-country. There is, then, no American continental copyright law. US Federal copyright law pertains to the United States of America. Period.

    That said, as I earlier alluded, there are International agreements, chiefly, for our purposes, here, the “Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works” (or just “the Berne Convention” for short), and the “Universal Copyright Convention,” abbreviated as “UCC” (not to be confused with the “Uniform Commercial Code” which has always had the “UCC” moniker, and so the Uniform Commercial Code also using “UCC” for short is both confusing and unfortunate.

    To learn more about International copyright issues…

    SEE | (US Government website)
    SEE | (Wikipedia)
    SEE | (University of Washington)
    SEE | (Chicago Artists Resource website)
    SEE | (the Mondaq website)
    SEE | (the Rights Direct website)
    SEE | (American Library Association) (a “fair use” BIG dog)

    …and to learn more about copyright, just generallly…

    SEE | (US Nat’l Institutes of Health)
    SEE | (the Copyright Clearace Center)
    SEE | (the University of Washington)
    SEE | (the One-Page Guide to Copyright) (convoluted but useful)
    SEE | (the Tree-view Chart on Copyright) (also convoluted, but good)
    SEE | (Google search)

    In few other areas of law do I more strongly recommend that one, even after reading and fully understanding all that’s herein linked to, get a good IP (specifically copyright) lawyer. I actually know a lot about all this; and have handled minor copyright issues myself; my lawyer has even joked that I could work in his office. But even I know better than to tackle anything serious in the area of either trademark or copyright without the help of qualified legal counsel. The problem, of course, is that good IP legal talent is *VERY* expensive. So there’s the rub.

    Still, become educated about it, but mostly only so you and your lawyer can have better and more efficient conversations.

    Hope that helps.

    And, oh, yeah… good article, Anand and Arun! Excellent!

    Gregg L. DesElms
    Napa, California USA
    gregg at greggdeselms dot com

    Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
    Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

  5. Dan

    While I don’t dispute Mr. DesElms’ representations, I sure empathize with Mr. Knight! Paranthetically, I do a lot of complex video gfx/vfx/compositing but wouldn’t show a one of them online in any general sense; i sometimes might post at something like deviantART but only to show what’s possible using free digital art/image tools…simple stuff, like how good marble or metal textures out of the air with GIMP/plugins are, or composites out of fractal odds/ends, simple things NOBODY including me could make a cent from…just inspiration.

    However, my wife recently had some episodes where vintage furniture she’d listed on eBay began showing up on completely different sites by completely different posters on American and other sites; we knew this not only due to JPEG “metadata” and so forth, but because there can’t be THAT many homes with the same lights, carpets, colors, and furniture; this wasn’t eBay’s or our fault, just an apparent “niche” of cybercrime where people in your own or another country/language “borrow” images and try to get people to use alternate wire/e-wallet payments for products they never have; it’s a process all right to get these miscreants off sites.

    So I guess I’m just adding that you should keep track of EVERY image you upload (and similar images on the web), as you never know who might be “borrowing” your identity this way and perhaps leaving a bad public taste behind your back for things you DO have a right to sell or claim ownership in.

  6. @Dan I now use Digimarc to track my images. Even if the image is altered, cropped and used or embedded within another image, the digital warermark is still readable and trackable online. More info on that here: Some sites like eBay and Facebook strip out the meta information when the image is uploaded, which is a real pain, and you have to rely on a reverse image search.

    @Gregg I am not misunderstanding anything. Maybe it’s my wording. As I mentioned it is a tricky area and with different laws in different countries, it really can’t be covered in a few paragraphs or a comment. We were asked for personal experiences and that’s what I wrote about. I do understand what the DMCA does. I mentioned it because the article mentioned it. Takedowns are now done to death and over the last few years there’s been an increase of dirty tricks (Google, MPIAA, RIAA amongst them). Sony just filed a fake DMCA requiest just the other day over a Creative Commons (free game) – Again, my point being the word “tricky”.

  7. Dan

    Yes sir, that’s how it happened, and why I don’t post in any old public places (not posting standalone commercial is easy…someone else will own the work when done, but may permit folio example usage). I’m aware you’re also a UK forensic consultant as well as an extremely talented, well-credentialled artist; I feel that things like digital watermarks at least establish first-ever use (where right to use is unquestioned), and at least helps establish two or more parties didn’t randomly generate the same concept ex nihilio where one is published before any others, or that the first creator (where true owner status not in issue) didn’t intend COMMERCIAL hypothecation with an image without even informal licensing entered into…in re abuse of original works, or abuse in DCMA or clone legislation/policy complaints.

    One of my oldest living Chicago acquaintances is an international art attorney, but I am not; I agree with you from a forensic (fact) position where chain of evidence or security is in issue, but mixed issues of law (what really constitutes ownership or fair use, e.g.) and fact indeed need lives of their own. Of course, I always support digital forensics and security first, and hope that legal philosophy won’t see such things as “mere” obstacles to be removed as if ALL work should be collectively owned by society de facto. I could add nothing more; cheers to all and best wishes for a great year!

  8. Copypedia

    An insightful article!
    When your work is used, consider using — it helps record and identify users and content creators, and helps provide accountability in the era of the internet and mass copying.

  9. David Q

    Hello Anand – very insightful article! A lot of useful resources – I was wondering if you have any other tips/strategies to help identify copyright material? Or any other useful tools to help identify copyright for videos?

    I would love to get your opinion on a few topics!

  10. Hi David, I do not know of any tool to help identify copyright for videos. But will cover it, if I do come across something.

  11. ??? ????

    Copyleaks is a great free plagiarism checker alternative.

  12. Very useful post. I appreciate the sharing.

  13. Plagiarism Checker

    Getting unique and non-plagiarised content these days is a major
    challenge but not when you use this incredible online plagiarism checker tool
    offered by

  14. Hasan Raza

    Thanks Anand, this article was very helpful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

2 + 9 =