Someone copied your website article: preserve evidence before deciding what to do

Capture the observed copy without altering it

Record the full public URL, final destination after redirects, observation date and timezone. Save a reasonable screenshot showing the article title, copied passage and enough page context to identify the destination. Retain a local text or page copy where appropriate, keeping the original capture separate from annotated comparison copies.

Do not rely on a search-results screenshot alone. A result can display an excerpt that differs from the current page. Open the destination safely and compare the actual text. Avoid unfamiliar downloads, browser extensions or sign-in demands presented by the other site.

Capture the relevant scope, not every unrelated page. If five articles are affected, make five exact entries. A homepage URL does not identify which article or passage needs review, and a giant unstructured archive makes the problem harder to assess.

Preserve your own publication history

Keep the approved draft, available revision history, source files and relevant commissioning or licensing records. Record the public original URL and any later URL changes. Distinguish the initial publication date from subsequent updates and from the date shown on a template.

A visible date is one signal, not an independently verified creation history. Another page can display an earlier date, and a legitimate migration can change yours. Preserve the underlying records rather than editing dates now to strengthen the appearance of priority.

Where the article includes licensed photographs, quotations or contributed material, document those boundaries. Our image-permission guide explains why credit and permission are different records. Do not claim ownership of every component merely because your article contains it.

A fictional garden article appears elsewhere

Imagine a fictional gardening website that finds six consecutive paragraphs from its raised-bed guide on another domain. The editor saves both public URLs, captures the matching sections and retains the approved draft and revision record.

The comparison reveals that the other page has added a new introduction and omitted a safety qualification. The evidence packet records both the copied wording and that omission. It avoids the broader claim that every part of the second article is identical.

The publisher checks its partnership register and finds no recorded permission for this destination. That is an internal finding to investigate, not a courtroom conclusion. The next decision is whether a factual publisher inquiry, host process or qualified legal review is appropriate. No fictional notice is submitted as part of this example.

Keep the search question independent

If the other URL appears above yours, save that result as a dated observation. Search location, query and result format matter. Do not conclude that your entire traffic decline was caused by the copy without a separate page-level investigation.

Google’s canonical troubleshooting guidance acknowledges that its selected URL can differ from a publisher’s preference. That is a search-system decision, not a transfer of rights. Equally, a self-canonical on your page is not a certificate of originality.

Use the canonical and duplicate-URL guide for technical signals on your own website. Do not redirect your original to the copied page or delete your source article to make a report cleaner.

Choose the response destination deliberately

A publisher contact route concerns the publication itself. A hosting process concerns what that host can handle. A search-removal process concerns access through the search product. Those routes have different requirements and effects; one request does not automatically complete the others.

Google’s legal reporting guidance asks for the relevant product, specific URLs and precise context. It also explains that restricted content can remain elsewhere on the web. Read the actual current process and its declarations before submitting anything.

If ownership, exceptions, jurisdiction or the required statements are uncertain, take the evidence packet to a qualified adviser. Do not use a generated legal notice as a substitute for understanding what you are declaring. Review any personal or business details that the receiving process may disclose.

Minimize data in the packet

Remove unrelated customer details, credentials and internal discussions before sharing a comparison. Keep unredacted originals in an appropriate private location. A support screenshot of your editor can reveal account names or unpublished material that the public-page comparison does not need.

If technical records are relevant, our log-investigation guide explains private handling and narrow excerpts. Do not publish visitor logs to demonstrate that an unknown crawler visited your site; the request alone would not prove who copied an article.