Molly, As far as I know, posting something to the group doesn't automatically enshrine it in copyright law. In my experience, some other kind of action would usually be needed. I don't know this for sure with regards to the Internet, however. Outside of my expertise.
As I've said, it's your responsibility to make the decision. There may be a complication, however. Given that your blog is Google Adsense-enabled and carries Amazon AWS advertising -- and hence you are profiting from content you did not write -- I think Vam and Fran's talk of wanting to see some kind of return for their contributions may need addressing, no? :) Ian 2009/7/27 Molly Brogan <[email protected]> > > For clarity, can you site us some copyright law that tells us clearly > that as soon as we post something in this group (no matter what name > we are posting under, and whether or not we have a legitimate profile > to match it) we own a copyright to it without actually applying for > copyright with the office of the country of our citizenship? This > would certainly be of interest to me and go a long way in clarifying > the concerns we are all voicing now. Last I checked, copyright was > something you applied for and were awarded after (in the US) paying > for the privilege. There is, on the internet, creative commons > copyright, but as that is not in use here, it does not apply. > > Do you think that googles terms and conditions were referring to > material that may actually have a copyright? This is probably the > case, and reminds me that I should be listing the copyright info when > I post things from my books in these groups. But it doesn't really > matter anyway, because copyrights only come in handy if I can prove in > court that I obtained mine at a date prior to the publication of my > material under someone else's name, in which case, I might be awarded > damages if someone made money using my work as theirs. > > It is all only points of interest. Going forward, I will only use the > posts from Minds Eye from folks who have given permission, and as I > said, this won't really change things much. Each post is accredited to > the author under their fictitious name or, if I can ascertain it, > their given name on my blog. I do this because I believe that we are > all adults and prefer to use adult names. I'm glad to clear things up > and hope for further clarification on the copyright issues. > > The issue of how far we need to go to control our words has indeed > become an interesting topic. Neil's image of perusing the internet > for info on Darwin to formulate a response to the Darwin thread is > poignant. How many original ideas do we have? How deeply do other > writers words effect us on levels that we don't recognize as our words > are coming out of us? In my opinion, it isn't the words, but the > logos that moves between us as we are exchanging the words that > expands our awareness. Therein is the true treasure. Can we really > control that on the internet and why would we want to? I think the > more we try to hold on to control in these ways, the smaller our world > becomes. There are lots of groups on the internet. This one is great > because of the level of exchange between members. The internet is > great because it gives us immediate access to information and ideas. > It expands our world - in direct proportion to how we allow. > > On Jul 27, 5:55 am, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > Google's terms and conditions are clear: you may not reproduce posts > without > > permission of the copyright holder (the author of the post). Legally > there > > is no discussion to be had on this point; neither in public nor private. > > Philosophically, as Francis has alluded to, there's probably quite a lot > to > > discuss. > > > > Where there is a legal discussion is on what the moderators do about the > > fact that one of us has previously given Molly permission to reproduce > posts > > made to Mind's Eye on her blog. The question is what we do about this > (given > > that this permission was apparently not ours to give). This discussion > only > > relates to the indemnity of the Moderators and has nothing to do with the > > actual group. Ultimately Molly may choose to carry on reproducing posts > on > > her blog, but, in my opinion, the Moderators should not be complicit in > > this. > > > > As a writer I value the protection of copyright laws, even if others do > not. > > > > Ian > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
