TalkBoard Elections/05 - Question 17: What is your opinion on the current policy about the ownership of posts?

This question was submitted by andre1970:

"What is your opinion on the current policy about the ownership of posts? Does it need furhter clarification? Do you think that this is an important or a trivial issue and why?"

I have seen the discussion on this and I believe this is something that should be investigated. I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. I do not know copyright law and whether the current TOS limits posters in any way. Again, I believe it is something that we need a legal opinion on. So absent that legal foundation, let me tell you what I do believe.

I believe that most posters don’t care. Few have likely read the TOS at all and even fewer care about who owns the rights to republish their question about how hard it is to upgrade to first class on airline X. That said, to the few that do care, this is an important issue and it could materially impact their willingness to contribute. Furthermore, the ones that care enough to value ownership are the ones that have content to contribute that will likely be of real value to the community. So, while few will be passionate about this issue, I do believe it is important and should be addressed in an aggressive manner.

Next, I would like to the see TOS be changed. There are really only 2 possible outcomes of the legal investigation: that it limits ownership or that it doesn’t. If the TOS currently strips ownership of posters, then it can cause people not to contribute valuable content. That’s bad for the community. If the TOS are essentially invalid and copyright law protects the poster, then it implies a loss of ownership and might scare some posters without actually accomplishing anything. Either way, the current TOS negatively impacts content creating and information exchange.

I understand that FT provides a service and needs to be able to protect itself. They must have the right to moderate and edit posts and they may at some point want to package content here for other purposes. In my mind, the most reasonable compromise may be to establish joint ownership and provide that either FT or the contributor has the right to reproduce individual posts in part or in whole and where the FT can edit or eliminate content it finds to be in conflict with its rules and conditions. But prior to firming any such conclusion I would want to see a legal opinion about what everyone’s rights are under current law.

I think it is much ado about nothing. This issue is the complaint of the day for the clique that cannot be made happy.

I've seen discussion on this topic here at FlyerTalk and on other IBB's I frequent. And there seems to be no clear cut consensus. The owners of the websites usually put a disclaimer in their TOS stating that all posts belong to the website. Yet the posters/members often reject this claim and claim individual ownership.
Who's right?? I think the law on Internet publishing is still being evolved and that this debate hasn't been thoroughly run through the courts enough to determine legal ownership. And perhaps it'll always be a point of contention regardless of legal interpretation.
My personal opinion...and I'm not a lawyer....is that ownership resides with the individual posters/members regardless of what the TOS states.
An analogy is that you often see a sign in a car wash stating that "We are not responsible for any damages". That's been proven to be pure hogwash as you are not able to skirt the law by putting up a sign or by writing your own interpretation of the laws.
Bottom line, I'm in the camp that advocates individual ownership of what I write and until I see conclusive evidence to the contrary, that'll be my position.

I don't think that most posters have much concern about this issue except perhaps a few who often write lengthy trip reports. Perhaps a reasonable compromise in TOS would be that posters own their posts but grant Flyertalk (and affiliated organizations) the right to use those posts in perpetuity.

My personal opinion...and I'm not a lawyer....is that ownership resides with the individual posters/members regardless of what the TOS states.
If that is the case, Cholula, would you agree that it would be advisable to modify the TOS to conform to the reality? If that claim truly is meaningless and provides FT with no protections, then why introduce the potential contention? I do not like slanted standard contracts. When buying cable TV with only one franchise to choose from, I might not have a choice. But a board such as this should be in partnership with its community and I would hope that the TOS would be constructed in such a way as to outline a set of rules that worked well for all and not to give the site everything it wants that the courts will allow.

An analogy is that you often see a sign in a car wash stating that "We are not responsible for any damages". That's been proven to be pure hogwash as you are not able to skirt the law by putting up a sign or by writing your own interpretation of the laws.
That sign is meant to protect the business and hopefully chase off uninformed consumers with valid complaints. I do not like applying any such analogy to FT and it suggests they are out to rob the user community blind whenever it suits them and they can get away with it. While it might not have any legal merit, I do not like that “gimme gimme gimme” mind set driving what should be a fair and equitable partnership that works for everyone.

Bottom line, I'm in the camp that advocates individual ownership of what I write and until I see conclusive evidence to the contrary, that'll be my position.
With all due respect (and I mean that honestly as you know you are someone for whom I do have an abundance of respect), since you are not a judge with a case pending, your assumptions or opinions on potential rulings and potential ownership have no bearing. The more pertinent question is, would you support changing the TOS for this site?

This question was submitted by andre1970:

"What is your opinion on the current policy about the ownership of posts? Does it need furhter clarification? Do you think that this is an important or a trivial issue and why?"

Hi
Well lets look at what the guidelines currently say:

"Who owns my post?

For the sake of simplicity, we'd say that we own anything posted on FlyerTalk. Our reasoning is that we have the power to edit or delete any such post if we, representing the community, find it provides more harm than value to FlyerTalk. Also, if a member decides they no longer want to participate in the community, we would find it difficult to go into the database and delete each post an individual had made. Excerpts from posts to FlyerTalk may appear in InsideFlyer magazines, books, or other materials."

Now when you join FlyerTalk you agree to adhere by these guidelines. Now I can why Flyertalk wants to keep the right for the postings but I can all see why the posters want to keep that right as well.

What I would suggest is that if this is a major issue then a change to the Guidelines should be submitted to the FlyerTalk board and then put out to the membership to discuse and vote on. If I where on the board that is the way I would like too see it being handled.

regards RadioMan

The author of anything owns copyright unless he is paid for exclusivity or waives his right to it in writing. I have been a journalist, editor, and publisher all my working life, and that is a fact. Whether here or in Europe or the USA.

Write and submit a short story about your dog, or your holiday, your upgrade hell, or your sex life and send that to Reader's Digest. They will tell you if they publish it, and pay you $5,000, they'll then own exclusive copyright if you agree to that deal. THEN you have in effect sold or assigned the copyright away.

Anything you type yourself you own. Period. If I type a trip Report and post it here I am legally free to post it or sell it anywhere I wish at a later date. From over 25,000 FT posts only a minuscule handful would have been posted outside FT, but it remains my legal right to do so should I choose. If Randy sends me $1 a post they are all his for perpetuity. :)

FTs says they'd like for 'simplicity' to say they own copyright over what is published here. Nice concept, but there is no legal right whatever they have for that claim IMHO over anything I type. The accumulated contents of an active thread etc is of course a quite separate issue, as no single person types it all. The "entity" is a creation then effectively owned - and created - by Flyertalk. And one they have a rock solid right of claim over. Randy raised this recently with me re the very controversial Tireflock thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=478614) and he was 100% correct - I agree.

When Tireflock.com was closed down after publishing private FT PM's I decided to stand for this election. I wish that thread was required reading for every member that votes. @:-)

PM's sent via FT resources are also arguably copyright etc. Less precise and clear protection, but they'd have a good claim over that IMHO.

Copyright© is generally very simple in concept really.

A grey area is where say the WSJ night take a quote or report off FT from someone with a real name as a handle and publish it - OttoGraham or MatthewClement or MattWald as an instance. I do not know of a case where that kind of 3rd party use has created an issue, and most members would have no problem with it I am sure. I certainly would not. But legally it is a potential grey area.

Having said all that I would say copyright of posts concept effects virtually none of the 80,000 members of this board. ;)

If that is the case, Cholula, would you agree that it would be advisable to modify the TOS to conform to the reality? If that claim truly is meaningless and provides FT with no protections, then why introduce the potential contention? I do not like slanted standard contracts. When buying cable TV with only one franchise to choose from, I might not have a choice. But a board such as this should be in partnership with its community and I would hope that the TOS would be constructed in such a way as to outline a set of rules that worked well for all and not to give the site everything it wants that the courts will allow.

The TOS is in the process of being re-written. In fact, it's a document that will always be subject to change and revision. That's one of the things we reviewed at a moderator meeting in Chicago a few weeks ago. And there has been a committee, which I'm a member of, working on the re-write for the last several months.
I'm answering the questions posed here not as a moderator nor as a representative of FlyerTalk but simply as a candidate. andre1970 asked for our opinions and I gave him my personal take on the situation.


That sign is meant to protect the business and hopefully chase off uninformed consumers with valid complaints. I do not like applying any such analogy to FT and it suggests they are out to rob the user community blind whenever it suits them and they can get away with it. While it might not have any legal merit, I do not like that “gimme gimme gimme” mind set driving what should be a fair and equitable partnership that works for everyone.


I used the car wash analogy not to disparage FT but to point out that you can put whatever you want in the TOS but whether it stands up to a legal challenge is a whole 'nother issue IMO. The FT TOS is written with the best of intentions and reflects the rules, directions and requirements of FT's owner and administrators. There has never been any intention to mislead members by putting in clauses that were knowingly bogus.

With all due respect (and I mean that honestly as you know you are someone for whom I do have an abundance of respect), since you are not a judge with a case pending, your assumptions or opinions on potential rulings and potential ownership have no bearing. The more pertinent question is, would you support changing the TOS for this site?
Once again, my personal and non legal viewpoint is that a poster owns his/her words. But quite frankly, the ownership of posts was never a big issue to me and still isn't. It's not something I'm passionate about.
My answer to you here is that I'd like to see the TOS reflect the current law on ownership of posts no matter what that law states. And I haven't seen a definitive legal ruling for the ownership of posts on an internet bulletin board.

Cholula Disclaimer: I'm treading in an area here where I'm waaaaay beyond my level of expertise. My opinions are just that....my opinions.
And in the spirit of most threads on FlyerTalk, not being an expert in a subject does not prevent most of us from weighing in on it anyway. :)

And in the spirit of most threads on FlyerTalk, not being an expert in a subject does not prevent most of us from weighing in on it anyway. :)
That is perhaps the most accurate statement of the entire campaign. :D

Althought this may not be the popular view here, I believe that FlyerTalk should own all posts on this forum. I believe that any poster should also have the right & not be denied usage of his or her own posts either. If a user writes a Trip Report, for example, and types it into a MS Word file before posting it on FlyerTalk - then he or she is just reposting something they've already typed & owned and can claim ownership to it & is free to republish whenever they'd like.

The reason I believe FT should own all posts is moreso to protect its membership than to exploit it in the rare cases that a member wants to use his or her posts for personal reasons, such as publishing memoirs or something. As a moderator of the Mileage Run forum - I get a surprisingly large number of PMs or e-mails from reporters. This year alone, I've gotten at least 5 or 6 interview requests from reporters. Its not a hidden fact that reporters read this site - sometimes there are even legitimate request for interviews that they have submitted to Randy. Sometimes, its just a reporter who has joined FT & sends a PM to a user asking them to participate in an interview. Either way, reporters are out there & I believe that part of the reason that FT should own the posts is so a reporter can't just take the information & republish it freely. Even if an individual user owned the post - it'd be a lot easier to rip the information & reuse it than it would be if FlyerTalk - a larger entity with an stronger interest to protect its content - owned the post.

That said, I do believe that if a user would like to use the comments that he or she posted in their own private venture (i.e. a book or something), then they should be granted rights free of charge to their own typed content.

Lastly, although I don't know all the details, I recall a while back (over a year or so?), there was an FTer who had passed away & someone wanted to write about him and include posts that he had made on FlyerTalk. I believe that unless there was express written permission from the family, that FlyerTalk should not let anyone utilize the posts & that way it can continue to protect its membership.

So, to recap, I believe that FlyerTalk should continue to own the posts - from a business perspective it is important. As a TalkBoard member, we need to look out for not only the members of this site, but for the site itself - and I believe that its in FlyerTalk's best interest to own the posts & grant, free of charge, individual users rights to the posts that they have written. If a user doesn't want FlyerTalk to own his or her posts, then they don't have to post. It's as simple as that - although it may not be the answer you want to hear, that's what I believe.

And I'll add a Cholula disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer & these are my opinions.

This is only able to be resolved with legal opinions. I suspect the best advise is:
"IF you want to retain control of anything on the internet, do not publish it"

I think it is much ado about nothing. This issue is the complaint of the day for the clique that cannot be made happy.

I am a strong critic about cliques among the candidates. You might recall that I was the first one to expose that dirty little secret in this forum. However, your characterization of the clique in question is dishonest. It is no more accurate to refer to it as "the clique that cannot be made happy", than it would be to refer to the your clique as "the reactionary clique that wants to rollback all changes at FT". "People who live in glass houses . . . .", as the adage goes.

I think I've made it perfectly clear that I am not a part of either clique (or more accurately - any clique among the candidates). And I think the members reading this forum (even those that disagree with my views or style) understand that I speak my mind on the issues with honesty and candor. So I'll get back to question and do exactly that:

I have been expressing concern about this issue with folks on FT for a while before I ever considered running. It is not the complaint of the day for me. I found more than one member is concerned about this issue, some of whom were already concerned before I brought the matter up.

I felt it was important enough to mention in my platform. And, make no mistake, I still feel it is important. Like other posters in this thread I am not an attorney, but I do know that intellectual property law is complicated and there are many unsettled issues.

But suppose it was settled law - there is always someone willing to litigate just about anything. As a result, any hint of a copyright issue will greatly diminish the ability of an author to publish content. The vast majority of publishers do not have deep pockets. This is especially true for those publishers that are available to authors early in their career.

A lot of the members are involved in business. I ask them: What would you do if you had to make a decision on a project that might very well make you a profit, but also exposes you to litigation that may bankrupt you? I think it is clear how this can have a chilling effect on the ability to publish.

Now imagine that you are a professional (or even amateur) travel writer or photographer - Would you really want to jeoprdize your ability to sell your work by posting on FT? Do we want to loose valuable content because of a poorly written clause in the TOS?

I have no problem with giving Randy's related ventures the right to publish content from posts (after all he is a businessman, and he pays the bills around here). But I don't think we need to give FT exclusive rights to our content. Take a look at the TOS for other sites. You will find that FT is certainly a standout in how it views ownership. What does this say about FT?

But let's ignore even that . . . it comes down to this:

Posters put a lot of time and talent into producing content that aids the FT community, it would be downright unfair to deprive them of ownership of what they have chosen to share with us. It simply goes against what I believe that FT stands for. It is a mistake that should be corrected.

Posters put a lot of time and talent into producing content that aids the FT community, it would be downright unfair to deprive them of ownership of what they have chosen to share with us. It simply goes against what I believe that FT stands for. It is a mistake that should be corrected.

Hi
We have seen on a few occaisions (that I know of) where in particual the BA Tesco thread that the information has been virtually copied word for word and posted onto other forums and I believe (I will apppologise if am wrong) that the original poster was never given any acknowledgement about this at all.

I have already expressed my views on what the board should do.

regards
RadioMan

It's a catch 22,

But I believe a clearly written TOS should solve the issue,

Content of the posts are the intellectual property of the poster however the actual post is the property of the website owner, in this case the website owner could not be held responsible what is said in the post however they may do what they wish with it (ie delete it)

This is only able to be resolved with legal opinions. I suspect the best advise is:
"IF you want to retain control of anything on the internet, do not publish it"

This is an excellent reason to elect a lawyer to the TB. IAAL, and IMHO the present TOS is a model of ambiguity.

For the sake of simplicity, we'd say that we own anything posted on FlyerTalk. Our reasoning is that we have the power to edit or delete any such post if we, representing the community, find it provides more harm than value to FlyerTalk. Also, if a member decides they no longer want to participate in the community, we would find it difficult to go into the database and delete each post an individual had made. Excerpts from posts to FlyerTalk may appear in InsideFlyer magazines, books, or other materials.

What legal effect does this statement have? Are TOS binding on posters/FT members? What does the phrase "we'd say" mean? Do we say, or do we not say? A court would probably say that we didn't say.

Fortunately, it's hard to see the issue of ownership of FT posts ever becoming a significant legal issue, either for FT or for any individual poster. Just don't post chapters of your book here, or write a book entitled "My Collected FT Trip Reports."

Just don't post chapters of your book here, or write a book entitled "My Collected FT Trip Reports."

I disagree strongly. If an auhor is willing to share a chapter of a book (as many do on amazon.com for example) with FT - do we want to prevent that from happening due to our TOS being poorly worded.

And why shouldn't someone be allowed to publish their memoirs of living large off of loyalty programs and use their Trip Reports as part of the story. Come to think of it - thats a good idea.

I disagree strongly. If an author is willing to share a chapter of a book (as many do on amazon.com for example) with FT - do we want to prevent that from happening due to our TOS being poorly worded.

And why shouldn't someone be allowed to publish their memoirs of living large off of loyalty programs and use their Trip Reports as part of the story. Come to think of it - thats a good idea.

I should have said -- don't post your content here unless and until the TOS are updated and reworded.

We have seen on a few occaisions (that I know of) where in particual the BA Tesco thread that the information has been virtually copied word for word and posted onto other forums and I believe (I will apppologise if am wrong) that the original poster was never given any acknowledgement about this at all.

I hope that I haven't given the impression that I would advocate changing the TOS so that stealing another poster's content was acceptable. To be clear - I want posters to retain ownership of their original content (and by definition, to retain ownership, they must have had ownership to begin with).

I hope that I haven't given the impression that I would advocate changing the TOS so that stealing another poster's content was acceptable. To be clear - I want posters to retain ownership of their original content (and by definition, to retain ownership, they must have had ownership to begin with).


Hi
Its ok. I was just showing that things do happen and have happened.

regards
RadioMan

I am in complete agreement with bhatnasx.

I am a strong critic about cliques among the candidates. You might recall that I was the first one to expose that dirty little secret in this forum. However, your characterization of the clique in question is dishonest.

I've been trying really hard to stay out of the clique discussion, and I'm sure this will just give fodder to those who have already chosen to assign me to a clique ... but here it goes anyway.

Dirty little secret?

I'm not sure exactly what you think you've exposed. If you were to do a search on "clique" you will find 294 threads using that term. Lots of people accusing lots of other people of being cliquey.

What it comes down to in my opinion is relationships. In a group of 80000 people, you are going to find people that you have kinship with, and you will find those that you can't stand. When all you are judging someone by is what you see of them on the internet, it becomes easy to just assign people to groups. "They agree with poster X a lot or disagree with poster Y most of the time... therefore they are part of Z group." While relegating someone to a clique makes it easier for us to make base judgements, it certainly doesn't challenge us to really get to know someone, and find out what their ideas are.

When people meet, and the relationships become more 3 dimensional, that judgement becomes more complicated. When someone you don't know posts something nasty, all you see is that post. When its a friend, you take into account the things you know about them... going through a rough divorce, dealing with a drug addicted family member, or a death, or just having a bad patch. Sometimes that means choosing to support a person when you don't support their view. Is that inherently a bad thing?

What some people are choosing to assign as "clique" behavior on all ALL sides of the argument are IMO people respecting a history of friendship. I'm of the opinion that you cant be an influence if you aren't involved. Because one chooses not to hang their friends out to dry publicly does not mean they have not tried privately to be an influence to the positive. I think all candidates as well as members should be given the benefit of the doubt, and if you can't do that, then ask them outright.

That all being said.. I'm a proud member of the Buenos Aires Grill Clique, AND the KegDo clique. If you believe me to be members of any others, by all means ask.

I'd like to close with a post another candidate made a long time ago that sums up my feelings very well on the clique subject

I look at it this way: Say you are in college, and you become close with the folks in Freshman class with you. You form bonds and that is good. Then you come back Sophomore year, and there is a good base of friends, but also many new friends who are freshmen.

Soon, it is Junior year, and you have plenty of friends in both your class AND in the Sophomore class PLUS new ones every day who are freshmen

By Senior year, you are closer to some Juniors and Sophomores then many Seniors PLUS are making many new friends of freshmen.

And on and on.

Some of my closest FT "posse" have been on FT for less then a year.

So while I guess I'm firmly entrenched in several "cliques" I dont see that as a barrier to expanding relationships with anyone. To me, FT has ALWAYS been about the people (and the fun) first, the sharing of info second....

Althought this may not be the popular view here, I believe that FlyerTalk should own all posts on this forum. I believe that any poster should also have the right & not be denied usage of his or her own posts either. If a user writes a Trip Report, for example, and types it into a MS Word file before posting it on FlyerTalk - then he or she is just reposting something they've already typed & owned and can claim ownership to it & is free to republish whenever they'd like.

bhatnasx & missy -
Perhap I am just overlooking something, but I am not seeing how this differs from the joint ownership concept I discussed where both parties have full rights to duplicate in full or in part. Are we actually all in agreement or is there a finer hair to split that I am not yet seeing? If both parties retain full rights, I actually don't believe the view is at all unpopular but rather is just an acceptance of what most posters likely assume to begin with.

However, your characterization of the clique in question is dishonest. It is no more accurate to refer to it as "the clique that cannot be made happy", than it would be to refer to the your clique as "the reactionary clique that wants to rollback all changes at FT". "People who live in glass houses . . . .", as the adage goes.

You must have me confused with someone else. I have NEVER sought to bring FT back to the "good-old" days. In fact, with the exception of one change (News Crap), I have welcomed the changes to FT.

I'll accept, in advance, your apology for lumping me in with the people who will never be happy, as they are the ones who want to roll FT back to 1998.

I believe that your opinion. writings and ramblings are yours and yours alone. What you say, write, compose, photograph, create is your responsibility as well as your property.

In that light, your posts to FT are still yours, and should not be FT's property.

I believe that Flyertalk.com should have nonexclusive rights to anything posted here. That would solve the problem of a member claiming rights to their posts and demanding mass deletions, etc. bhatnasx has an excellent point about others reposting/using Flyertalk content and I'd want to explore how to fully incorporate this.

I also have no problem with, as a condition of membership, allowing limited republication rights as currently outlined in the TOS.

Finally I have no problem with Flyertalk forbidding republication or mirroring of its content on other sites -- I couldn't copy and paste a Flyertalk thread on my own site and say that my site has the best discussion of frequent flyer miles on the net.

But I would argue for members retaining rights to their own original posts/content, such as reposting personal content elsewhere.

I am a strong critic about cliques among the candidates. You might recall that I was the first one to expose that dirty little secret in this forum. However, your characterization of the clique in question is dishonest.
I've been trying really hard to stay out of the clique discussion, and I'm sure this will just give fodder to those who have already chosen to assign me to a clique ... but here it goes anyway.

Dirty little secret?

I'm not sure exactly what you think you've exposed. If you were to do a search on "clique" you will find 294 threads using that term. Lots of people accusing lots of other people of being cliquey.


Madame President,

First of all, I would welcome you to read my words a bit more carefully. I said that I was the first to raise this issue in this forum. I stand by what I say, and its an important distinction - not only as it makes what I said true, but because there are a lot of members out there that new or simply have not been involved in the specific history of which I speak.

No one else wanted to risk being accused of negative campaigning by bringing the facts to the voters, so I did. We don't have CNN or the Washington Post publishing exposes on the TB candidates, so I'm doing what I can.

We both know that I am not refering to a clique of people interested in the chess club, but in a specific clique that you are indeed a member of. So there is no sense in trying to convince you as you know the truth.

I would invite those in the electorate, to contact friends from FT that have been around for a while and have a lot of posts. Ask them if they know what I am talking about - and if they believe that I am telling the truth. Ask them about who the TireFlockers are.

You might even try asking some of the candidates that have been around for a while. I know it wouldn't take too long to find one or more of the TB members that aren't running for office who would likely confirm what I am saying.

The point is, if you are new to FT, I am not asking you to take my word for it. Ask questions of folks that you respect, and you should be able to find answers.

In another thread today, someone posted some old threads that cast a member of the other clique in a bad light. The post has been since deleted, but it was interesting that the account that posted it had been around for many years, but only posted 4 times including today. You don't have to be a rabid conspiracy theorist to suspect this might have been a political dirty trick by someone of the TireFlock clique to attack an opponent using a secondary handle. This is exactly the sort of thing that many people associate with the TireFlockers and don't be surprised when these same pseudo-handles come out of the woodwork to vote for other members of this clique.

But we seem to have gone off topic yet again. Hmm, it seems that missy was the one that strayed, I merely followed.

Getting back to the topic:

Perhap I am just overlooking something, but I am not seeing how this differs from the joint ownership concept I discussed where both parties have full rights to duplicate in full or in part. Are we actually all in agreement or is there a finer hair to split that I am not yet seeing? If both parties retain full rights, I actually don't believe the view is at all unpopular but rather is just an acceptance of what most posters likely assume to begin with.

Again, I am not a lawyer, but I think this might effect your ability to sell the remaining rights to the work. Its one thing to say "I'll sell you the complete rights to this work with a minor exception cut out for FT and its siter publications." and quite different to say "I'll sell you the complete rights to this work, except for anyone that FT might decide to license them to. " I don't think Randy would likely do that, but a prospective buyer might disagree.

However, your characterization of the clique in question is dishonest. It is no more accurate to refer to it as "the clique that cannot be made happy", than it would be to refer to the your clique as "the reactionary clique that wants to rollback all changes at FT". "People who live in glass houses . . . .", as the adage goes.You must have me confused with someone else. I have NEVER sought to bring FT back to the "good-old" days. In fact, with the exception of one change (News Crap), I have welcomed the changes to FT.

I'll accept, in advance, your apology for lumping me in with the people who will never be happy, as they are the ones who want to roll FT back to 1998.

Oh look, another set of coincidences: Both you and Missy have gone off topic, misrepresenting what I have said about a clique that you both would wish to claim not to be members of. Such symmetry.

What I said was: it would be just as inaccurate to characterize your clique in that particular manner, as it was to use the characterization that you used.

While I have made mistakes in my campaign and apologized for them, I wouldn't wait up for the apology that you seem to expect.

Oh look, another set of coincidences: Both you and Missy have gone off topic, misrepresenting what I have said about a clique that you both would wish to claim not to be members of. Such symmetry.

What I said was: it would be just as inaccurate to characterize your clique in that particular manner, as it was to use the characterization that you used.

While I have made mistakes in my campaign and apologized for them, I wouldn't wait up for the apology that you seem to expect.
More inaccurate statements! I think we have a professional politician here.

Where, oh where do I claim not to be a member of a clique?

Also, you may want to check your hidden sources for accuracy. I have never met missy (would like to, I admire her) and to my knowledge have communicated with her once or twice in FT chat about the Sea-DO's.

If "chatting" about an FT Do makes a member part of a clique, then you and your hidden sources have a pretty sad definition of a clique.

CG,

1. My sources? I didn't say anything about sources. I merely invited folks to ask around. It shouldn't take them a long time to find the truth.

2. I can't help but notice that your language is very stilted. You list some places that you have had contact with missy but never come out and say that it is a complete list. Let me ask you this . . .what was your involvement with TireFlock?

3. I am happy with continuing this as long as you guys are, but it just doesn't belong in this thread. Might we at least agree to take follow ups to the open forum?

My opinion? FT should retain the minimum set of rights it needs to operate. Probably some sort of license. Since I'm not a lawyer, I will not speculate further on what that minimum set is. I propose that we set up a forum where FTers who like to play lawyer can debate the issue. :p

Gentle readers,

I don't participate, never have, in cliques, personal attacks, and/or flame wars, on FT or anywhere else.

You must have me confused with someone else. I have NEVER sought to bring FT back to the "good-old" days. In fact, with the exception of one change (News Crap), I have welcomed the changes to FT.


Playing the Devils' Advocate here, I'd have to say VPescado seems to have a better recall of facts about your recent posts than you do. ;)

For someone now saying you have "welcomed" all the changes to FT, your memory seems to have totally forgotten your regular crusade to bring back the "Thread Rating Feature" - a crusade fellow candidate Few Miles (totally co-incidentally I am sure) also championed at the same time, starting his own thread urging its return.

As recently as 3 weeks ago you started yet ANOTHER thread on this. If you "welcomed" the change, why fight tooth and nail to have the change over-turned?

That feature was disabled by Randy as Tireflock Inc played childish and disruptive and divisive havoc with it.

You claimed there was "No Abuse, No Troublemakers" as recently as 2 weeks back regarding that feature, before that thread too was locked.

Wrong. :td:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4656433&postcount=47

That feature was one of the most divisive ever seen on FT. Along with the "Reputation" feature for which Few Miles received a public time out for abusing, and leaving totally forged dings using other member names - mine included. The same Clique abused both systems. For the same reasons, against the same members.

Gentle readers,

I don't participate, never have, in cliques, personal attacks, and/or flame wars, on FT or anywhere else.

For what its worth, to the best of my knowledge the above is entirely accurate. :)

Madame President,

First of all, I would welcome you to read my words a bit more carefully. I said that I was the first to raise this issue in this forum. I stand by what I say, and its an important distinction - not only as it makes what I said true, but because there are a lot of members out there that new or simply have not been involved in the specific history of which I speak.

We both know that I am not referring to a clique of people interested in the chess club, but in a specific clique that you are indeed a member of. So there is no sense in trying to convince you as you know the truth.

In another thread today, someone posted some old threads that cast a member of the other clique in a bad light. The post has been since deleted, but it was interesting that the account that posted it had been around for many years, but only posted 4 times including today.

You don't have to be a rabid conspiracy theorist to suspect this might have been a political dirty trick by someone of the TireFlock clique to attack an opponent using a secondary handle. This is exactly the sort of thing that many people associate with the TireFlockers and don't be surprised when these same pseudo-handles come out of the woodwork to vote for other members of this clique.


Very interesting observations. ^

Another interesting observation - from me this time

The fake handle used to make these posts was not banned as a user due to making them. As is usual when trolls with no real previous posts make deliberately inflammatory posts purely to derail threads.

Of course that fake handle could NOT come back and make more disruptive posts if it were banned. Think on that.

missydarlin is a moderator in that forum, and like her fellow mods (also both Talk Board members) could have easily banned that handle. I am aware that they all received a number of "report post" reports on that user.

At first it was partly edited, leaving the bulk of the post intact for quite a long time. Then eventually totally edited.

The moderator doing so left his comment - with his own Talkboard Election signature slate in place at the base. Totally in-appropriate for that Forum one would have thought, from any of the Mods there. Make a seperate post as a member if they wish, but leave it off all "official" actions. Common sense would indicate they check the "no signature" box for "official' posts in that forum, to give the impression of impartiality to the debate, to side-stop this kind of editorial endorsement:

This Talkboard member is voting for: Bhatnasx, Cholula, Gleff, Missydarlin, Peteropny.

That user banning was not done, despite that handle having clearly admitted on board it was a fake handle of another well known original FT'er. I have little doubt of whom.

Randy had made it clear most thought, that there was to be NO electioneering this year in the Talk Board Forum. Many actions that went on there last year are rather sadly, now infamous. A dark page in FT history. I was advised that NO moderator or Talk Board member would have any role in this year's election debate - outside of THIS forum, so can only assume not everyone got that message.

Nope, there are no cliques at work in this election. Heaven forbid.

Perhaps this is surprising only because I am reasonably new, but I must confess that I would never have expected the most vigorous debate and the most impassioned posts to be on the vital topic of whether or not cliques exist on this board. :confused:

Perhaps this is surprising only because I am reasonably new, but I must confess that I would never have expected the most vigorous debate and the most impassioned posts to be on the vital topic of whether or not cliques exist on this board. :confused:

I would like to reiterate my request that we take this to the open forum. But to address John's confusion:

The issue is not just the cliques and the vigorous denials, but also the mechanations, collusion, and dirty tricks (e.g. the post that Oz and I were discussing). I would invite you to speak to folks that have been around FT a while and ask about the TireFlock debacle.

This question was submitted by andre1970:

"What is your opinion on the current policy about the ownership of posts? Does it need furhter clarification? Do you think that this is an important or a trivial issue and why?"

Currently the FT TOS refers to posts as belonging to FlyerTalk. In short, I think this is a good thing; but further clarification would not be a bad thing either. I'll express my opinion here, and should make it clear that I'm not a lawyer, don't pretend I'm one on FT, and I don't brag about having extensive knowledge of copyright law. :p

I believe it's simpler and more effective from a legal standpoint if it is assumed that FlyerTalk owns the copyright on all posts contained on this bulletin board.

By posting on FT, our writings are being published on this bulletin board. FT provides a means for us to disseminate our thoughts and ideas. I think the best way to describe why I think FT must own the copyright is to look at the opposite case: the hypothetical situation where the TOS explicitly said that FT did not own any of the postings and that copyright rested with the original authors.

Some examples of what could happen under these conditions:

1) A person could deliberately misquote a post from FT, take it out of context, etc. -- basically distort its original meaning, republish it on another website, in a newspaper, or in LiarTalk magazine (fictitious Randy P. competitor), etc. and attribute your name to it as the author. FT can't do anything about it. "Sorry, we don't have any rights to the post." The onus is on you, the individual, to take action.

2) A person whose post gets moderated (edited, deleted) could claim that his creative work is being distorted or destroyed by FT. All flames posted could be defended as being creative works and thus could not be deleted.

3) Someone could take whole threads, get "permission" from the posters to publish it as an online chat or an interview in LiarTalk magazine. FT pays to provide resources to support this online community and gets its content stolen by a competitor.

4) FT could not use content from the boards without an additional written consent from the original author, be it for TalkMail, InsideFlyer, or whatever.

I think that FT owns the copyright is actually a good thing. In all of the examples I give above, such a clause protects FT and even protects us the members. Specifically, with regards to each of the four cases above, FT can go after someone who has violated its copyright. It protects FT and protects the posters who wrote the stuff. FT can enact moderation as it sees fit, which is given in the TOS. FT protects its own resources.

I think people are rightfully a little more worried about the last point. What if FT quotes me or publishes a post of mine in TalkMail, InsideFlyer, etc.? Well, they own the copyright, and so they can do so.

I would think that it would be very nice if they could, as a courtesy, ask permission to do so, or at the very least inform you that they're going to do it. This point in particular would be something that TalkBoard maybe could address.

There seem to be a few people who are, IMHO, over-reacting to this issue. The fact that FT owns copyright is in the end a good thing. Everyone who posts on FT has agreed to the terms of the FT TOS which states clearly that they own copyright. In the end, FlyerTalk is basically a publisher, and we the members are the freelance writers. Everytime we post, we are agreeing to transfer copyright to FT. If anyone doesn't like that, they really should stop posting here until the TOS is changed!

As for posters wanting to republish the content of their posts in memoirs, on their own website, or as an article for a magazine, these people should pay careful attention to the copyright agreement they sign in exchange for the $500 or whatever they receive. Most of those publishers will have you declare that the work you are handing over to them to be published is original and has not been published elsewhere before. Given that you've already published it on FT, you might be in a bit of a bind where you will need to get copyright clearance from FT. Mind you, I don't think Randy will be especially demanding other than politely asking you to give FT a good endorsement. :)

The most important thing is that even though FT owns the copyright, they cannot own authorship of the work. That belongs to you, no matter what, and is not a transferable "right"; it's an attribute of the work. In fact, I'd say that FT would be in some deep trouble if they didn't attribute your work to you.

FewMiles..

I don't brag about having extensive knowledge of copyright law. :p



A very wise idea.

As your points have no validity whatever in law. ;)

Copyright© rests with the WRITER unless the WRITER assigns it away in writing for a fee etc.

Much more info on that truism here for your possible interest:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4733302&postcount=8

The most important thing is that even though FT owns the copyright, they cannot own authorship of the work. That belongs to you, no matter what, and is not a transferable "right"; it's an attribute of the work. In fact, I'd say that FT would be in some deep trouble if they didn't attribute your work to you.

FewMiles..

"I don't brag about having extensive knowledge of copyright law."

Yes the fairly simple concept seems to have eluded you. But to bring it down to 5 words, to simplify it a little:

Writer = ownership = Copyright = international law. @:-)

I have had my material published regularly on 4 continents, and have had for 30 years. That is what copyright entails.

missydarlin is a moderator in that forum, and like her fellow mods (also both Talk Board members) could have easily banned that handle. I am aware that they all received a number of "report post" reports on that user.



I seem to recall you previously taking issue with a candidate censuring another candidate.... yet now I'm being taken to task for not moderating during elections in which I'm a candidate? Have you changed your mind then?

I seem to recall you previously taking issue with a candidate censuring another candidate.... yet now I'm being taken to task for not moderating during elections in which I'm a candidate? Have you changed your mind then?


I have no idea what you are referring to in the first part of your reply - but I feel sure you'll refresh our memories. :)

As to the second part, all 3 Forum Moderators received a number of 'Report Post' alerts - do you agree? This in fact was what was asked for on the thread. I was making the rather obvious point that a troll poster with just 3 lifetime posts, an admitted fake handle of another FT'er, whose post was deleted entirely, and responses to it, was not banned as a user as is usual practice by any of those 3. The obvious conclusion some would draw from that is that it was inviting more disruptive posts from that fake handle. Can you see that perception being very possible?

Are you now telling members that you have resigned/recursed yourself as a moderator of the Talk Board Forum for the duration of this election - a course that would seem entirely appropriate seeing you are also a Candidate? I do not believe that has occurred, but if so, please advise, and I'll re-post my answer.

Wow, I turn my back for a minute then this pile of !@*(%% pops up. :D

This is the clearest example I've see for Randy to ignore any sort of non-travel-related advise from active Flyertalkers.

And the whole issue of ownership is pretty silly when there is no legal trust relationship between us and Flyertalk. Can you see a District Attorney ordering a subpoena for Stimpy? "What is the last known address for Mr. or Mrs. Stimpy? Are they even American?". What silliness.

I'm going back to my comic books now.

The members of FlyerTalk have asked me to remind the candidates for TalkBoard to restrain their comments to the topic of this thread. It makes it much more clear for them to determine their choices when they can read the answers rather than some of the "noise."

From a legal perspective, I think it makes a lot of sense for FT to tell us that

"Who owns my post?

For the sake of simplicity, we'd say that we own anything posted on FlyerTalk. Our reasoning is that we have the power to edit or delete any such post if we, representing the community, find it provides more harm than value to FlyerTalk. Also, if a member decides they no longer want to participate in the community, we would find it difficult to go into the database and delete each post an individual had made. Excerpts from posts to FlyerTalk may appear in InsideFlyer magazines, books, or other materials."First, it gives them legal cover should they desire to reprint any words, ideas or information posted on their web site. We have all CLEARLY given them permissions to do so.

Second, the question of IBBs in relation to defamation and libel law are far from settled. It makes a lot of sense for Randy to say: "look, I am going to assume that the House of Miles is going to be held responsible in court for anything posted on FT so for simplicity's sake (without going into legal mumbo-jumbo) dont assume that just because you post something here that you get a final say in how it reads; ie, we 'own' it. Once you put it here, it is OURS to do with as we please and we WILL do with it as we please."

Could all that legal mumbo-jumbo make this clearer? Sure. But I, too, HATE paying lawyers to precisely phrase what ought to be obvious.

Finally, this is not a question of the law entirely. It is a question of acceptable practices to maintain FT posting privileges.

I seriously doubt Randy is going to sue you if you sell your posted trip reports as a book deal, and seriously doubt he would win if he did. But he might decide if I post here AND at a competitor's site that my participation is not in his best interest. We are all here at Randy's convenience and will. He can suspend our posting privileges for any or even no reason. Again: it's his asylum, we are just the inmates.

I find the TOS and what I assume to be Randy's reasoning on this matter sound.


Missymuffin, you must have dug DEEP to find the gem you quote here (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4734721&postcount=22)!!! I still feel the same way that I described all those years ago. I LIKE the tireflockers. I LIKE the moremilers. I LIKE the flyerchaters. We all have our foibles and sillinesses, and we all do and stay stupid things sometimes. But I'd break liquid bread with just about any FTer out there. Except, as noted, my evil, evil sister. Man, she was MEAN to me this weekend, telling me that I didnt love our parents because I missed a family event in NYC. She makes me feel SO BAD about myself! I dont even consider her a FTer though, since she went on the freebie Iceland thing and didnt even make it to the bar. Besides, I HATE her!!! Anyway. Yeah. Sorry. Um. I guess I am done. :)

Are you now telling members that you have resigned/recursed yourself as a moderator of the Talk Board Forum for the duration of this election - a course that would seem entirely appropriate seeing you are also a Candidate? I do not believe that has occurred, but if so, please advise, and I'll re-post my answer.

I believe you mean recused, and yes I have done so.

bhatnasx...<snip>
Are we actually all in agreement or is there a finer hair to split that I am not yet seeing?

John C,

Sorry its taken a little while to get back to you - I'm in LGA on a mileage run right now & internet access has been limited over the past few days...

I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I think the only reason why I'm suggesting on FT ownership versus joint ownership is due to thread management. I believe that a user should have full rights to their own posts - but from a "What's good for FlyerTalk?" perspective, I think that FT should own the posts - even if its for a simple reason that a user may decide they no longer want to participate in FlyerTalk & they may ask the tech staff to delete all their posts (which they would have the right to do, if they owned the post) - this would be an unnecessary burden on FT staff. I believe that users should have rights to the use of their post - but ultimately, I don't believe they should be the owners of it since they are posting on FlyerTalk.

I believe you mean recused, and yes I have done so.

Although, I think we really should take follow ups to the open forum, I did want to say: ^ ^ ^ to missy for recusing herself. It was the right thing to do.

OK, if I wasn't clear enough in my post earlier today...

I think this is a non-issue. It's up to Randy and his legal advisers what to do if he is ever presented with a subpoena. As I said above, there is no legal trust relationship between us. I cannot make any legal demands on Randy or HoM based on what is posted under the ephemeral guise of Stimpy. Nor can Randy make any legal demands on me since he doesn't really know who I am.

So why are we talking about this again?

Getting back to the question posed here, my personal opinion on the current policy about the ownership of posts is that I have little concern, myself.

That is, if Randy wants to claim ownership of my posts, well...they may well be worth more to him than to me, and I have precious little interest in retaining all my rights - or I wouldn't even post here on FT. Also, I firmly believe that Randy is a good guy, and that he is generally well intentioned.

Yet who the heck am I? Nobody! Just one more tiny cog on the great FT wheel(s). And I am somewhat concerned for the many others who may have such concerns.

And one day FT may well change hands. That is one concern. We may not always remain under such benevloent leadership.

So, FWIW, I believe that Flyertalk should probably retain some "nonexclusive" rights to the material posted herein. Again I am not an attorney, obviously!

Flyertalk should probably be able to keep members from making a claim of any special rights to their own posts. They should ideally have only whatever rights they clearly need to provide this service for all of us - and very little, if anything, more.

I also agree with the relevant point raised concerning the practice of others making reposts of Flyertalks content. I have seen some of my posts from FT elsewhere, and I've assumed it was a TOS violation ,as I believe that it should well be. Who knows if it is legal? We should make every effort to keep this from happening to protect the interests of FT and FTers. Flyertalk should surely be able to continue to prevent the unauthorized publication or republication of its' content elsewhere, at other websites.

At the same time, how could anyone seriously claim that they have a genuine problem with FT'ers being permitted to retain some limited publication or republication rights of their very own posted material? So essentially, I agree that FT'ers should retain some limited rights to their own original FT posts.

Essentially then, some sort joint ownership is a good idea, and surely some clarification of the present terms would be nice to see sometime soon.

Mark

A few points I wanted to add for those in both the "Copyright is simple" and "FT owning the post isn't a bad thing" camps:

1) Copyright is not simple. Especially in the US. Authorship does not provide copyright nor does it provide ownership (e.g. a reporter working for salary at a newspaper holds no ownership).

2) Any hint of a copyright clearance issue will postpone or prevent publication. This happens with Movies all of the time. I own a CD that was released in the US without the original pictures in the liner notes because noone could provide copyright clearance for the graffitti in a picture. The series "WKRP in Cincinatti" will likely never be released on DVD because of problems with getting clearance for the original music - it ran in syndication (re-runs) with substituted music.

3) The muddying of ownership helps noone because now FT and the poster would need to establish clear ownership as a prerequiste for having standding against an entity that violated the copyright.

Beyond that, you can take a look at my previous posts much earlier in the thread for my position on this issue.

The series "WKRP in Cincinatti" will likely never be released on DVD because of problems with getting clearance for the original music - it ran in syndication (re-runs) with substituted music.What was the original song?

Occasionally "Baby, if you've ever wondered... wondered whatever became of me. I'm living on the air in CVG, CVG WKRP" hums through my mind, even today.

What was the original song?

Occasionally "Baby, if you've ever wondered... wondered whatever became of me. I'm living on the air in CVG, CVG WKRP" hums through my mind, even today.


I should have been more clear. The theme song was the same but, WKRP often used pop music both as background and when the DJ's would do intro's and outro's. These were substituted for release to syndication.

Having worked on the revision of Canada's copyright laws and treaty obligations back in the 1980s when these were updated to deal with contemporary technological developments, I know there is no simple answer to this question.

At the heart of copyright laws is the notion that the author of a work is the owner of its copyright. However, by posting your "work" on FT, you are accepting the terms of the owner of the site, as this is private property. FT itself is considered a compendium of individual works, but holds the copyright for the entire site. FT also has a legal liability for lible, slander and other possible violations, including the reproduction of copyrighted works [i.e. cutting and pasting articles from newspapers, magazines, books, etc.] without permission of copyright owners.

I take the view that by agreeing to participate on FT, we cede copyright to our posts to the owner of FT. As part of that, he has the right to edit, delete or otherwise deal with posts, albeit such alterations should not alter the intent of the message. Once edited by FT, the original poster cannot be held responsible for what appears under his or her name. It is also common practice to cede one's Moral Right to the integrity of a work, when assigning copyright to another party [in this case FT].

I take the view that by agreeing to participate on FT, we cede copyright to our posts to the owner of FT.
This is a complex topic, but let me now be succinct. If you are accurate in your assessment then this is just plain wrong. If someone goes to great effort to compile a collection of exceptional trip reports and later wants to publish their own works, they should be allowed to do so. Any terms that would prevent that from happening are outright offensive.

Where does it say that you wouldn't be allowed to do so? That the copyright has been transferred to FT doesn't mean that you cannot get it back. Ask nicely, and I'm sure FT (i.e., Randy) would grant you permission to republish your trip reports in a book. (Knowing Randy, he will likely thank you for your contributions to FT and for the publicity your book would bring to FT.) IMHO, the publisher for your trip report compendium may likely be more concerned with the fact that you've previously published the work before than the fact that copyright rests with FT.

FewMiles..

That the copyright has been transferred to FT doesn't mean that you cannot get it back.

You posted above you knowe nothing about Copyright, but keep on posting as if you do. :)

The copyright of what you write yourself does NOT vest with Flyertalk. Never has. That has been outlined several times by folks who do know about the matter.

You posted above you knowe nothing about Copyright, but keep on posting as if you do. :)

The copyright of what you write yourself does NOT vest with Flyertalk. Never has. That has been outlined several times by folks who do know about the matter.
How many copyright attorneys have posted their opinion?

Until such time as I see a VERIFIED LEGAL opinion, then everything I see here is nothing more than AMATUER opinions.

Period.

As a candidate i'll avoid the mud and the muck and state my clear opinion..

-I- own what I type... I can legally reproduce it, sell it, cross-post it to other forums/internet doodads as I see fit.

FT -also- owns it. How is that? Well, FT can use it for promotional, non-commerical (ie, not published in a book) uses. If somehow, something i were to post (say, a trip report) were to be published in a book, I would at least expect that I would be asked for consent on it's use. Then a user can discuss any sort of compensation/legal rights etc.

-I- do -NOT- have the right to take what has been posted on FT and move it around w/o permission. It's one thing to tell someone at the ticket counter about a dbl EQM promo that you read about on here, it's another to take a post off FT, either copy it verbatum or hacksaw it enough to 'claim ownership' and reproduce it elsewhere. It's disrespectful to the community, and to the poster who is not getting credit for it.

How many copyright attorneys have posted their opinion?

Until such time as I see a VERIFIED LEGAL opinion, then everything I see here is nothing more than AMATUER opinions.

Period.

Indeed? All 4 or 5 million posts on FT are pretty much that I guess. Unpaid Amateur opinions. Some who post them are very qualified to do so of course.

I have owned, published, and edited large magazines, and from working in editorial section on a major newspaper near 40 years back, have always written and been published regularly worldwide.

So my "amateur opinion" on Copyright© is based on some 40 years experience. Do you have an direct experience in this area out of interest?

You have made so many baseless outragous claims over the years that I will take yet another one with a HUGE grain of salt.

You have made so many baseless outrageous claims over the years that I will take yet another one with a HUGE grain of salt.

The Surgeon General warns that too much salt is VERY bad for your health. ;)

For a change instead of just cut and pasting the same old personal attack, time and time again here, can you please assist the members - who want answers and not abuse - and tell me WHAT part of this comment I made is "baseless and outrageous" according to your attack?

Otherwise, please edit it or withdraw it. Thanks.



I have owned, published, and edited large magazines, and from working in editorial section on a major newspaper near 40 years back, have always written and been published regularly worldwide.

So my "amateur opinion" on Copyright© is based on some 40 years experience. Do you have an direct experience in this area out of interest?

I don't believe a word of it.