Originally Posted by VPescado
One thing comes to mind immediately: Allowing posters to retain ownership (ie. copyright) of their posts. I mentioned this in my platform.
Most other websites have policies that give the site the right to publish the content of posts, while allowing the posters to retain copyright to the posts. FlyerTalk's Terms of Service gives full ownership to FT.
This is not only unfair, it will limit the contributions that FT gets.
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 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.