The reason that the Reader needs to share copyright is that they’re “publishing” your material, on this message board, and deriving revenue from said use (subscription fees and advertising revenue), and they don’t want you to have grounds to sue them for doing so. It’s just ass-covering, really.
Why do you care? Are you planning on publishing your collected works some day and don’t want to have the potential advance reduced because you don’t have exclusive control over 1800 posts worth of message board blather?
Well, yeah… but CC is intended for creative works. Not message board blather. If you were Sampiro, you’d have somewhat more of a case for concern, but unless you’re planning on coining the next “threepeat”, I don’t think you have much to worry about.
Question: So, if I’m writing a TV sitcom, say, and love a long, highly-articulate, incredibly creative insult I find on the board, and decide to incorporate it into a rant by one of my characters, am I violating the Reader’s copyrighted material by using it?
The Reader is not required to give you notice or to compensate you for use. I see no reason to assume that use of your post under the shared copyright would not be attributed.
Huh? Why would I trust someone who wants permission to use my posts without attributing them to me to attribute them to me? Why are we even talking about trust? I’m talking about the fact that what they have demanded is completely unnecessary when they could accomplish the goals other posters have outlined as the Reader’s motivations by just putting specific conditions in the agreement.
With all due respect, and with great care lest I am banned, I must disagree. If ArchiveGuy was the author of that insult, you’re right. If another poster (such as myself, for instance) was the author of such an insult, you’re wrong.
Dumbass.[sup]TM[/sup] Rights available upon request.
Where does the agreement state they are allowed to use it without attribution? Without notice and without compensation. Very simple, really. Though you are not as flat-out stupid as andrewdt85, you are as equally making a mountain out of a molehill.
I used attribution as an example, and I explained that classes of license such as CC allow you to choose which rights to grant. Here, the Reader has simply taken all of them in one fell swoop. Replace “attribution” with “x” in my posts.
Ah, then what we have here is a fundamental disagreement on the use of copyright. As you disagree with the Reader’s claim to a shared copyright of your posts… well, what then? You now know of the claim, yet you continue to post.
No, no, Frank, he knew of it all along (after all he read it and he’s not an idiot), he just “noticed” it recently.
I guess he feels that something he wrote recently is so breathtakingly brilliant that he’s planning on having it published and that made him think about potential copyright issues and so he looked over the Agreement and “noticed” the clause in question.
Also, with regard to the question between you and fluiddruid, I would assume that you could always go to the author of the pithy quote and get permission. The Reader’s rights are nonexclusive.
What do you mean “now what?” The consequence of my disagreement was me posting this thread. The implications of your suggestion that I resolve this difference are tantamount to mod trolling. Carry on, Frank.
Oh, piffle. Where have I claimed to be speaking as a mod? The words at the bottom of the screen have been there since I joined the board, years before I became a mod.
Not really. A more intelligent strategy would be for me to voice my concern and bide my time. Change does occur around here. Just slowly. I am confident that my reading of the agreement is correct, and if it has been changed once, it can be changed again.
So what rights should the Chicago Reader have over your posts? Not forgetting that people leave the boards all the time and may no longer be easily contactable.
They do not want to have to delete all your posts because that decimates threads.
They also want to be able to publish them in other forms without having to contact 66,000 members, plus all the guests that have ever signed up but have not become members.
Write down what the agreement should say. It is no use saying the agreement is wrong then hoping it changes. The next changes may not be to your liking either, are you going to complain then too? Unless you say what the agreement should be the Chicago Reader is not going to keep changing it by trial and error until they get it to your satisfaction.