Question about Knowledge Ownership

If it's non exclusive then there's shouldn't be an issue w/ or between A/B .

Unless there are legally binding reasons why B can't post content from or compete with A.

And as a poster that has nothing to do w/ you. That would be between the lawyers of A and B.

If the owner's content is in A and they are assured (by A) of their right to post their material without restriction elsewhere, wouldn't it constitute hamstringing the owner's right to publish if A doesn't provide the owner with exceptions to that right to publish elsewhere at the time of the agreement?

For instance: After publishing your photo, you may publish it where ever you wish, except: Joe Shmo's Garden site, Ed's Garden Site, Bill's garden site, due to restrictions entered into agreement between this entity and the sites named.

Thank you.



This message was edited Jun 2, 2010 12:26 AM

LOL!

Nice try!

Sir...an honest question.

Thank you.

But B isn't posting the content. B is providing the venue from which C (the original contributor - you) is posting content. This is an issue for any content on the web. If you post something on Facebook, does Zuckerberg claim ownership of it and say that you can't post it elsewhere? Is Zuckerberg going to shut down the website for your local middle school and community garden? So far, no.

How is contributor C (me) to know of any litigation between A and B, D, E, F, G, H, I, and so on?

(In other words, what Gordo said.)

Both A and B are venues, but if A promises C full rights to post elsewhere when they know there are agreements in place that restrict that right, should they not, at the time of the agreement with C, disclose those agreements and venues?

I absolutely agree with you, gordo. The question is, does Internet Brands?

Non-disclosure of exceptions to blanket use of the owners property at the time of the agreement has created a twofold problem. The first is with C, who were led to believe they were under no restrictions and found out otherwise after the agreement. The second is with A. By virtue of A's non-disclosure, C exercised their assured right of blanket use not knowing A had entered into agreements with B that restricted those rights.
A - The primary venue and maker of the agreement - did not disclose.
C - The signer of the agreement suffered due to non-disclosure.
B - As the secondary venue, had no cause or duty to reject C's property - as C represented themselves as the sole owner with full rights to their property.


Thank you.

This message was edited Jun 2, 2010 11:13 AM

Wow, this is a great conversation.

If A had a revised Terms Of Use statement that included exceptions to blanket use in place at the time ownership transfer of the venue had been concluded, C would have been aware of the exceptions and refrained from submitting any property to B.

As a result, C has experienced unexpected disenfranchisement. Thus the anger.
B cannot make policy for A and cannot be held liable for A's errors or C's disenfranchisement.

Hypothetically speaking...of course.

Thank you.

And what if B had no signed contract with A? In any form.

Well it's actually A.3 .
If B signed w/ A.2 and A.3 was transferred these rights then.......

Hypothetically speaking...of course.

I'm sorry but this is a totally irrelevant conversation as you all are focusing on something that has nothing to do with:

a) the existing and future terms of service
b) our claims against Dave

This constant, ill-founded speculation is just continuing to fan flames and to be honest I'm quite tired of it.

The opening post asks the following questions: do I own the content I post? Can I post the same things elsewhere?

The answer is yes, but by posting here you have given us the right to use that content, on the site, for the indefinite future. This right is non-exclusive, which means you can post it elsewhere.

End of discussion.

If B was not among the group of A's excepted venues, C, under the non-excepted or excepted agreement with A, has full non-excepted right to place their property with B.

Thank you.