Programs: TubWorld, Bar Alliance, Borratxo Legendarium
Originally Posted by ozstamps
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.
Do small things with great love. - Mother Theresa
Are we actually all in agreement or is there a finer hair to split that I am not yet seeing?
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.
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of faces if you look at them right.
Location: Seat 1A, Juice pretty much everywhere, Mucci des Coins Exotiques
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.
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.
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.
__________________ Click here to learn how to construct and book mileage runs.
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.
__________________ Click here to learn how to construct and book mileage runs.
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.
Flying just is not as fun as it used to be, and it might actually be less secure as well.
Programs: TalkBoard: We discuss / ad nauseum things that mean / so very little
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.
Location: 10 min from the best cheesesteak in Philly... but dreaming of BKK
Programs: AA gold
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.