Question about Knowledge Ownership

I'm not trying to stir up an argument here, simply trying to get some clarification on my rights and obligations as a DG member.

Do I own the content I post? Am I allowed to post it elsewhere? Or am I giving it to you?

For instance, if I give some gardening advice on DG and then decide to share that same advice on Flickr or Facebook, am I in conflict with the user agreement? What if I do the reverse - share content on another site first and then post it here? Is that a conflict?

Or if, for instance, I share gardening knowledge here and then decide to share that same knowledge on a blog where I receive money from advertising, have I violated the terms of use? What if I decide to write a book? Will my publisher be in legal trouble with you because I'd previously published some of that same knowledge on your site?

Please clarify. What do I need to do in order to comply with my agreement with you and protect myself and others from any misunderstanding I might have of the terms of agreement.

Those are very good questions dividedsky, I hope we get some honest answers.

Honest?
That seems a little difficult to come by around here lately.

you don't own photos, that is for sure. The user agreement pretty much says they can do anything they want with them. They also claim they cannot remove your photos from plant files or elsewhere in mass. Written content, I don't know. I would be very leery.

If you want to be certain you own the material you post, go back to those posts later and delete it from the site. That's the best way to make sure it's yours.

If you want to retain your photos as your property, put links to them in your posts, linking them to your off-site photo album (photobucket, flickr, etc). Then you can come back to your post later and delete the links or move the photos around in your off-site album, breaking the link so the photo no longer appears in your post.

Your posts are about the same as your pictures. You own the copyright & may post it again verbatim on any other forum you want. However by posting on a public forum you are giving the forum owner a permanent copyright license to display your post, and (as in almost all other major forums) you may not revoke the license and ask them to take down all your posts. A forum is a device for speech... it's like a telephone where once you speak into it you can not ask the phone company for your words back.
If you write articles for DG though, then they probably have some exclusivity language somewhere where you are agreeing that in exchange for their payment, you will not sell or give it to anyone else.

grrnthumb beat me to it - that's it in a nutshell.

By posting here you give us a non-exclusive license to display your photo and posted words. Non-exclusive means you can share them anywhere else you want. You can post stuff here you posted elsewhere (as long as it's yours to share.)

Thank you for the phone analogy - that's a good one ;o)

And yes, if you are one of our writers, you are compensated for the articles we approve and publish. That means we've bought the article and you can't turn around and publish the same article elsewhere.

Thank you.

...without prior approval of the company that holds the copyright. It is possible to use these articles again with approval, as in putting together a manuscript and including some of the articles written for DG.

I


This message was edited May 27, 2010 8:32 AM

Wait a minute. Terry, I don't think that at this point you had better let anyone do your talking for you, not a good idea...things are a bit too tense.

So, our non-exclusive copyright license is irrevocable? What's up with that? So, let me get this straight, the owner's of DG (whomever that may be) has a right to use our photos (and other info) as they see fit...forever? My photos and info will be sold off to the highest bidder...over and over again...on down the line...into oblivion...

I know to some folks that's no big deal. To me it is a big deal. Lots of sites DO make their non-exclusive copyright licenses revokable...or you simply own your own things.

Strange that we can edit our posts, delete them completely if we choose to...but we can't take down those dang photos to save our lives.

heathrjoy that's it in a nutshell!

Let me be clear: I'm not talking about photos, which have been discussed at length here. I'm talking about information we type in threads and enter into databases such as Gardenology, Bird Files, Bug Files, and Plant Files. Knowledge that we provide to site users and Dave's Garden free of charge.

I'm also not asking what DG can and can't do with that content that we've provided. I understand that they're free to do with it what they want. Some of you seem to be reading something else into this. What I'm asking is what are WE allowed to do with the content that we've provided.

The answer, if I'm understanding it correctly, is whatever we want. We can post it on other websites, we can publish it in books and magazines - in a nutshell, we still own it.

Yes ;o)

In light of the lawsuit against Dave, I think we need to revisit the issue in this thread. This might require a statement from Internet Brands' legal staff.

Any of us who have been to Cubits.org know that this is not true. I found a limited number of incomplete entries on a small number of plants, but nothing with the amount of information or number of plants that DG Plant Files has. It simply wasn't there. What was actually there was obviously entered by hand, from the memory or notes of the contributors. Even if that data was entered by people who had contributed to Plant Files in the past, and even if they entered some of the same data that they'd previously entered into Plant Files, that would not be illegal, by your own admission and policies.

So my question, again, is do we own the content that we contribute here to post, redistribute, or publish as we please?

If I post various advice and knowledge in multiple threads over a period of years and then decide to publish a book with some of that same content in that book, is my publisher going to get a cease and desist letter?

For me, this is a key issue, and I'm not sure that I can continue to contribute to this site if my opportunities are limited because of it. I enjoy the spirit of sharing and collaboration that a forum of this nature fosters. And it doesn't bother me in the least that we're giving this content away to a company that profits from it. But if my future earning power or creative opportunities will be limited because I've already freely given my "content," I can't continue to build your product.

I understand that the situation with Dave is different because he wasn't just a contributor. But I don't feel confident that you haven't or don't intend to sue regular contributors - how would we know? If you sue them, delete any criticism that they might post, and ban them from the site, how would we know?

That thought crossed my mind, too. Thanks for bringing up these questions!

You raise some important questions. I'll be watching for the answer.

Terry, I thought IB said that the new wording for the AUP that was posted and discussed recently had been implemented as policy.

PLEASE push somebody to get the new wording posted! The AUP link at the bottom of the page still takes me to the previous policy. I think being able to read through the new policy would clear up a lot of these concerns!

I participated in the discussion of the part of the new policy that affected photos and other content uploaded here. It made it very clear that we retain ownership/copyright of the photos and content we post here, but that DG can utilize what we post anywhere on this site. Their "nonexclusive" right to the content means yes, we *can* use the same information or images anywhere else. But since we remain the owners, they cannot sell the information, they cannot sell our photos, they can not give our content away, they can only have it here at DG.

This is actually an improvement over the previous wording of the AUP which, among other things, gives DG the right to use our images for commercial purposes (a right that was never exercised to my knowledge, so I think a lot of us just overlooked it).

"If I post various advice and knowledge in multiple threads over a period of years and then decide to publish a book with some of that same content in that book, is my publisher going to get a cease and desist letter?"

No, because your agreement with DG as a member/subscriber does not grant them exclusive rights to anything you upload, nor does it grant IB "intellectual property rights" with regard to the content of your posts.

IANAL (I am not a lawyer), but this is my understanding of things

You're right. It does. Which is why I'm baffled that there's a legal dispute over Cubits users posting their own intellectual property in their cubits. Internet Brands doesn't seem to be playing by their own rules here. Item three of the Acceptable Use Policy says this: "Copyright of all material published is retained by the contributor." Which would allow contributors to publish their material in another venue. And now that they have, the venue provider is being charged with theft - among other things, which complicate the matter but don't change the issue of copyright ownership of material posted by contributors.

Maybe the question I'm asking, then, isn't a legal one, necessarily. Just about anyone can sue anyone else for anything they want. Maybe the question I'm asking is, what set of values and culture does this company strive to abide by? What kind of respect does it insist on providing those of us who generously allow it to operate and prosper?

(And for those of you who think that this question is too touchy-feely for a corporate entity, I will say that I work for a large company that has been in business for more than 200 years and wins awards each year for employee satisfaction, among other things. My employer has a very clearly defined set of corporate values that they adhere to. So it isn't unheard of for a company to make promises beyond their legal obligations.)

"If I post various advice and knowledge in multiple threads over a period of years and then decide to publish a book with some of that same content in that book, is my publisher going to get a cease and desist letter?"

NO, because you still have the right to use YOUR own material any way you wish including photos.

BUT it is my understanding that if you wrote a great article here on dg, or photos or whatever, that IB could publish a book of YOUR work. By posting your words or photos here you give IB non exclusive rights to use them pretty much any way they wish. Besides that, what mom or pop shop is going to have the $ to fight them anyway? So my advice, not being a lawyer either of course, is that if you have anything good, that you even may remotely want to publish someday or use for some special purpose, DON'T put it on DG.

So it isn't unheard of for a company to make promises beyond their legal obligations.

That is true, but more often than not nowadays, it isn't unheard of for a company to make as few promises as possibly in tiny writing, just the ones the law makes them follow...

This message was edited May 30, 2010 12:49 PM

You can do that, but just as we know Dmail is not private, I have a feeling IB has a way to pull off anything that WAS posted, even if it is technically deleted.

Let's keep this on topic. I understand that many of you regret your decision to give the owners of this site the right to modify, reproduce and redistribute materials posted to its services, both internally and for commercial use. But again, the question I'm asking doesn't have anything to do with what the owners of this site can do with your contributions. I'm asking what we're allowed to do with our contributions. You're welcome to discuss that topic in another thread, but let's not get off track in this one.

It's the SAME thing. Yes you can publish YOUR work after posting it here. But really, who's gonna buy it if it's 'free' at DG?
If someone has something they think could be worthy of publishing, don't post it here. IB can spread it around, you can spread it around, either way.

I really really hope the new AUP gets posted soon.. I don't know why it's not up yet, since I think we were told it was now implemented. The link at the bottom of the page is to the AUP that Dave wrote.

The new wording does NOT permit IB to use our uploaded content or photos for commercial use.

And (other than the DG articles, where the copyrights are purchased when DG buys the article from the writer), you are free to do what you wish with material that is yours. DG's rights to what has been uploaded are NONexclusive, meaning they can use your stuff on this site, but you still retain copyright to it.

As for "who's gonna buy it if it's free at DG"... well, I participated or created a couple of how-to threads and later developed those topics into articles... more concisely written, with step by step photos... and DG still paid me for the articles. :-) If I'd written those articles for a local newspaper instead, I'm sure the editor wouldn't say, sorry, we can't use this piece because people can find the information online.

well I don't subscribe to my town newspaper. Why? it's on their website for nothing.


As to the new user agreement I have read it and it pretty much said the same thing in different wording, unless I misunderstood something there.
I don't know why it isn't posted yet either, but I wish they would get on with it, I doubt it is more than a 10 min chore.
They have the right to use it anywhere, not just on this site-for promotion, commercial use, ect. The exclusive part means they are not excluding US from continuing to use our stuff anywhere else. It means we have the right to still use it, since it is still ours, but it is also theirs. That is the way I understood that.

maybe I'm mis-remembering, but I'm fairly certain their use of our stuff is limited to use on DG... as you said, I wish they'd post the new wording also, as I don't think it's available anywhere right now. I thought it was going to replace the old AUP once they took down the discussion threads and said the new wording was in effect... maybe there was a glitch (one they should fix ASAP!).

Is this all similar to my own analogy, or am I way off track?

If I submit a photo to a contest at the Botanical Gardens, they reserve the right to use my photo in any way they wish in connection with the Gardens, without asking or telling me.

However, I am free to also do whatever I want with that photo because I have not given up my ownership of it. I can submit it to another contest at another place, whether I have won that first contest or not.

That's certainly my understanding of it, nap.

I will make sure the new language gets put in place as soon as possible, and I'll be sure we announce it when it has been put in place.

Thanks, terry... that will help!

This is a very interesting thread and should continue, as members are posting copy and photos daily. How many of them understand that they lose FULL control of both their written and photographic material when they join?

Also...If I understand the policy correctly, a member may delete their posts, but not their photos. Why is the policy applied differently for each?

Thank you.

This message was edited Jun 1, 2010 6:17 PM

Is it possible that they are not so concerned with it as some are?

I don't think the posts vs photos thing is a matter of policy, more a matter of programming structure... if I'm remembering right, Terry has explained before that the only way to remove a photo is to take down the whole thread. ?

You don't give up full control.
You can still sell them anywhere you want.
IB can't.

I sell pictures all the time.
Many seen in Plantfiles by the buyer.
One was seen in an article used by a DG Member.
Buyers needing a specific photo Search.... Plantfiles gets a lot of searches....
if they need a Lizardtail photo and mine pops up in the search.... they contact me outside DG.
We negotiate.

If you go to sell pictures or articles you give up rights but in different amounts.
Simply put and this is certainly not the only forms.

It could be one time non-exclusive license ....
which means the person buying it can only use it for a specific task...
calendar, poster, mag article etc,
Simple non-exclusive.... they can use it for anything they want BUT not sell it or transfer to a third party....
that's a general internet license.
By non-exclusive You still own copyright and can sell it as many times as you want.

An exclusive license mean you give them the right and them only to use it.
You can not resell to anyone else but you retain the copyright.
These are many times set up w/ a geographic location or time limit.

Or as in the case of articles here and most everywhere else you give up or sell the total rights.
They can do whatever they want w/ it as they now own it.
That transfer of rights is what killed many early rock and blues performers.
They sold their ownership....
many songs you hear today on commercials have been sold dozens of times.
The current owner gets the royalties NOT the original artist or writer.
If you sell an article here you must pay DG a royalty to use it again.
It's always been that way here..... not a NM or IB invention.

You can publish your posts and photos as many times as you'd like where ever you like.
Not your articles.

Critter actually you can split a thread above and below a post and rejoin it.
(Or at least I can in other Forums I moderate or own.)
Effectively deleting that specific post/posts and anything it contains including the picture/pictures.
Not really that hard to do but time consuming as they have said before.
It would be nearly impossible to do for a member who wants specific photo only posts selectively removed.
Easier to ban the member, delete their content and let them rejoin I'd think.

Ric, I don't think that works in the forums here. It's a programming thing, I guess -- and it's something that Dave did differently when he put together Cubits (where you can add/remove photos at will and can also split threads).

I'm not going to try to explain the photo rights here further, at least not until the new AUP wording is put into place, which Terry said would be soon. :-)

Thank you, henryr10.

You're Welcome Gordo!

Thanks Critter!

Yes, that's what the legal language here says.

But when your second publisher is forced to shut down due to a potentially life-changing lawsuit from the first publisher - in part because of content that you have transferred from point A to point B - you are not free to do whatever you want with your content. Your second publisher is restricted from publishing your content. So you actually are giving up full control, unless the first publisher makes a commitment to respecting your rights as a contributor.