Listowners-L Archives
Archiver > Listowners > 1999-02 > 0920167405
From: <>
Subject: Re: Waived Copyrights and Public Domain
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 21:03:25 EST
In a message dated 99-02-27 18:25:49 EST, writes:
> The notice simply tells people that if they choose to publish in that public
> forum, then they are giving up, waiving, releasing, and granting
permissions
> regarding any copyrights they might have for the messages they post. Most,
> perhaps all, other mailing lists do the same thing, they just don't provide
> people with the kind of honest policy notice I give of this fact.
Steven, RootsWeb lists do NOT. It is the most important aspect of how
RootsWeb lists differ from the other listservers on the Net in my opinion. On
more than one occasion Brian has held that up to us with pride that RootsWeb
does NOT claim a right to any individual post by an author. It is a point I
always make to people in support of RootsWeb and their policies when trying to
get contributions from list members. They have a right to expect this to be
true of all RootsWeb lists and that there won't be fine print somewhere taking
away their rights.
>
> Whether the archives are maintained at Rootsweb.com, Liszt.com,
Ancestry.com,
>
> GenWeb.com, GenForum.com, or any place else, the essential truth is that
the
> person posting the message loses control over it.
I hardly think RootsWeb would like to be put in the same league with Crazy
Randy or GenForum--I can speak for GenConnect, which is housed at RootsWeb, by
saying that GenConnect clearly states that messages posted there remain the
property of the author--as opposed to GenForum's policies which state
otherwise. There is a clear-cut difference between the two.
They are not asked for
> permission everytime someone on the net displays or copies that particular
> message from the archives. That fact means they do not control the message
> once it is posted.
Whether they are or not--it doesn't make it right. They SHOULD be--and the
author could take action if they chose to do so. We both know that many times
the infringer gets away with their actions--but that doesn't make it the law.
>
> The extract you quoted from Rootsweb includes the following statement.
>
> "As a practical matter RootsWeb assumes, by virtue of the fact that a post
> has
> been made to a list, that RootsWeb has permission to distribute that
message
> to
> the list and to archive the message if the list is archived."
>
> That is essentially all that I've done and exactly what I put people on
> notice
> about. When they publish in my forum they are granting permission to
> distribute
> that message to the public and to archive it as I deem appropriate.
Archiving a message and republishing it are two entirely different things.
Archiving is housing a message so that others can view it and copy for their
PERSONAL use. We all give RootsWeb tacit permission to do that with our
posted messages. We do NOT give them OR YOU permission to republish or allow
others to freely do so for any use they desire which is what your "contract"
with your subscribers is saying.
>
> I've been open and honest with everyone using my forums. I've developed a
> good
> and useful collection of services for them which have been integrated into
a
> complete package. And, although I've spent hundreds of dollars of my own
> money
> and hundreds of hours of my own time developing these services, I haven't
> charged anyone a penny for them and I haven't made a penny from them.
>
How much money or time or effort you have spent building something is no
criteria as to whether it is legal or not. The message you copied to the
listowners list most certainly does NOT tell the reader what your plans are
for the messages they are posting to a RootsWeb list and placing their trust
in RootsWeb when doing so.
Finally, I didn't comment further on the copyright issues since Diana has
already done so, and eloquently I might add.
Joan
This thread: