Huge post etiquette

No. It has always been the case that you retain copyright to your own posts but give the SDMB non-exclusive rights to reuse them. Posting anonymously would make defending your copyright more difficult, but that can be overcome or Max could just sign his name.

Unless things have changed drastically since March 9, I have the full ownership of this post and every other post I’ve made here. I say March 9, 2022, because the Terms of Use are updated as of this date and contain this statement.

We do not claim ownership of any information, data, text, software, music, sound, photographs, graphics, video, messages, tags or other materials you submit for display or distribution to others through the Services, including any such materials that you submit through Interactive Areas (collectively, “User Submissions”). As between you and us, you own all rights to your User Submissions. However, you grant (and confirm and promise to us that you have the right to grant) to us and our affiliates, representatives, sublicensees and assigns an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, sub-licensable, royalty-free and fully-paid, license (sublicensable through multiple tiers) throughout the universe to use, distribute, syndicate, license, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform, create derivate works and publicly display your User Submissions (in whole or in part) in any format or medium now known or later developed; provided, however, that our exercise of our rights under the foregoing license shall at all times be subject to the limitations upon disclosure of your User Submissions imposed on us under our Privacy Notice.

To put it into the terms of the terms, you are completely, utterly, irrevocably, jaw-droppingly, carrot-munchingly, anti-macassar, unpatriotically, throughout-time-and-space wrong about our giving you ownership.

The Straight Dope web site and the Chicago Sun Times web site are not the same thing.

The registration agreement for the SDMB says this:

So my understanding of it is that yes, you are giving STM ownership of your work. However, you do still retain the right to publish your own work (and only your own work) yourself. In other words, you retain the right to republish your own post but not the thread that you posted it in, assuming of course that there are other posts in that thread besides yours.

Speaking in more general terms, posting something here does have copyright and publishing implications, as many publishers don’t just want copyright but they also want first publishing rights. If you want to publish something, the publisher may not want to invest in printing or publishing something that is already available somewhere else. If you write a totally awesome poem or short story, someone else may not want to publish it since it is already available for free here.

This is a message board. This is not the place to publish your great literary work or poem or whatever, unless you are looking for criticism and feedback to improve your writing (in which case we encourage you to post in Cafe Society).

This is also not the place to post 30 page works of pretty much any type. This is a message board for discussions. If you want people to actually read and discuss what you wrote, keep the size reasonable. Nobody is going to read anything that is more than a few paragraphs in length.

Substack exists for a reason.

One of you is wrong. The Terms of Use say, right at the beginning:

Welcome to the Internet sites (“Sites”), applications and services provided by Chicago Sun-Times Media, Inc. (collectively, the “Services”). These Terms of Use govern your access and use of the Services provided by Chicago Sun-Times Media, Inc., and any of its subsidiaries, affiliates, brands and entities that it controls. Please read these Terms carefully before accessing or using the Services. [bolding mine]

IANAL but I would say this is controlling over a registration agreement, and not merely because it is more recent. At the very least, the registration agreement, dated 1.16.18, needs to be updated to say explicitly that it contradicts the direct wording of the Terms of Use for the site.

Needless to say, this is not in any way an affirmation of any of Max’s intentions or disputing general advice on posting material online.

Happy Birthday @Chingon!

Yeah, I’m not concerned about the copyright issue.

The 30 page summary, that’s for reference. It’s not made for reading front to back. It’s basically forty or fifty cites packed into two posts, organized with spoilers so you can look at the relevant part without scrolling. I look at it when referring to a section of the law because the source material (800+ page PDF) is difficult to navigate and parse.

I’m going to take DSeid and Czarcasm’s sage advice, and start a limited thread on one criticism I have. It will concern just one sentence of law so no need to use the summary at all. If people show interest I’ll start another topic for the rest of the law, otherwise I’ll just drop the whole project.


Also, happy birthday Chingon!