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.

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..