On Jan 6, 2009, at 9:06 PM, John Klein wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009, Denise Paolucci wrote: > > @> We're still working out the legal issues surrounding copyright, > @> control-of-content, and implicit licensing, which is what the > @> potential sticking point for import of comments happens to be. (In > @> other words: *you* can give us permission to import *your* content > @> from LJ, because you're the owner of that content; you might not be > @> able to give us permission to import *someone else's* content, aka > @> their comments.) I, personally, am of the opinion that there's > enough > @> implied license in submitting a comment to someone else's journal > @> that it shouldn't be a large liability, AS LONG AS we retain the > @> ability for the 'owner' of the content to still have the same level > @> of control/manipulation that they had over the content on LJ. > > The other step to take here might be to ensure that the import tool > has a > legal disclaimer saying, basically, that if you use the tool to import > other people's comments, it's your responsibility to make sure they're > okay with you doing that. That onus shouldn't really be on the OSP.
Yes, and there's definitely a fair use defense there, especially if the service complies promptly with any/all takedown notices, etc. But we want to make sure that we're balancing the needs of the journal owner vs. people's desire for privacy and control over their own content. We're sure there's a sweet spot between "being useful enough to be useful" and "being creepy and invasive in how we handle things"; we're just working on figuring out what that sweet spot is. --D -- Denise Paolucci [email protected] Dreamwidth Studios: Open Source, open expression, open operations. Coming soon! _______________________________________________ dw-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.dwscoalition.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dw-discuss
