Question for WB admin:

[FatMan]

Let me explain the image/photos that users have uploaded to WhiteBlaze. The person that posted the image is the owner of the image and we here at WhiteBlaze will never use the image for profit or gain without the written permission of the owner. We also will not grant anyone else permission to use anyone else’s image that is on WhiteBlaze without the permission of the owner. The reason for the watermark was not to have WhiteBlaze claim ownership of the image. The purpose of the watermark was to prevent others from sealing the image from WhiteBlaze and using it without the owner’s permission.

Attrol, your post is certainly clear. However, it is contrary to your user agreement. You might want to consider updating your user agreement to reflect your above post.

Copyright notice
All content posted on the message boards and gallery of WhiteBlaze is the exclusive intellectual property of WhiteBlaze. Copyright ownership resides in that content by WhiteBlaze and the Company is free to use any of the content as they wish. Anyone other than WhiteBlaze seeking to reprint, republish, or reproduce content posted on the WhiteBlaze message boards must receive the express written permission from the Webmaster of the WhiteBlaze forum in which the content was posted. By posting on the WhiteBlaze message boards you are agreeing to the above and relinquishing all copyright to the contents of the post(s) to WhiteBlaze.

[Jack Tarlin]

Troll:

Thank you for the above post in regards to ownership rights of photographs.

I assume that that the same thing applies to written submissions to the website, as well as photographs, i.e., Whiteblaze agrees that WRITTEN submissions to the website would also not be re-printed, re-published, or sold for profit without the express knowledge and permission of the original owner.

I also believe that the User Agreements of Whiteblaze should be re-written so that this is quite clear, both to present Whiteblaze members, as well as those who'll be contributing to the website in the future.

[Rift Zone]

Thanks for that Attroll. Frolicking Dino PM'd me earlier with a near duplicate of post #36. My response was:

No worries about the move... My apologies for not catogorizing it correctly in the first place. That is way cool... directing that organization to the originator. I have even more repect for WB knowing that.

Please understand I didn't mean to cause a big stink over this. I never doubted the integrity of WB but this is a crazy world mostly ran by lawyers and the big business they represent... I had to know what was what.

I appreciate you taking the time to inform.

I want you to know that I have the utmost respect for WB and those that make it run. (even you Dix) My intent was not to challenge your integrity. I did need to know about this though, there is a possibility that I will seek publication sometime in the future and the legalities of the situation are pertinent. After all, you cant hold on to something forever and no telling if the next owners will be as cool as you.

Let me explain the image/photos that users have uploaded to WhiteBlaze. The person that posted the image is the owner of the image and we here at WhiteBlaze will never use the image for profit or gain without the written permission of the owner. We also will not grant anyone else permission to use anyone else’s image that is on WhiteBlaze without the permission of the owner. The reason for the watermark was not to have WhiteBlaze claim ownership of the image. The purpose of the watermark was to prevent others from sealing the image from WhiteBlaze and using it without the owner’s permission.

Umm... As FatMan and Jack Tarlin mentioned, care to put that in writing?

[Cosmic Crusader]

Should have been placed as a question to the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page.

yeah I guess its better for a bunch of hikers to talk this out than to just stick to what it says in the EULA. And if it was supposed to be a public question why does it have that subject heading?

Bottom line is if you want to make money on something EVER dont EVER share it freely.

[attroll]

Troll:

Thank you for the above post in regards to ownership rights of photographs.

I assume that that the same thing applies to written submissions to the website, as well as photographs, i.e., Whiteblaze agrees that WRITTEN submissions to the website would also not be re-printed, re-published, or sold for profit without the express knowledge and permission of the original owner.

I also believe that the User Agreements of Whiteblaze should be re-written so that this is quite clear, both to present Whiteblaze members, as well as those who'll be contributing to the website in the future.

Yes the same goes for all articles that are submitted to the WhiteBlaze articles section. We would not release these articles for use by anyone else without the permission of the person that submitted the article.

I look at the forums in a different manner. The forums are not photos or published articles. They are post by other users that are trying to help out other hikers. The soul purpose of the forums is for users to share their knowledge and to help prepare other users who are going to be hiking the AT and any other trails that are discussed on this web site. I feel that any information in the forums is for sharing with others. That was the soul purpose of the forums. So I am not going to tell users to read the forum posts and not pass on the information to help others. That would defeat the purpose of the forums.

I am not going to turn this thread into a long discussion about whether WhiteBlaze owns the post that are posted in the forums on this web site. If you do not want to share your knowledge or communicated with others to help them by posting in our forums, that is your choice. No one is twisting your arm by making you post.

[Rift Zone]

Cosmic, I hear what you are saying, but i'm not feeling it. Perhaps someone else cares about this. It could happen!

I also believe that the User Agreements of Whiteblaze should be re-written so that this is quite clear, both to present Whiteblaze members, as well as those who'll be contributing to the website in the future.

And Attroll, my take on your latest post is this:

Images=originator
Articles=originator
Posts in Forums=WhiteBlaze

I'm cool with that!

[Jack Tarlin]

Rick:

There is a very significant difference, as you well know, between passing information along and sharing it with others, and having one's writings or contributions being sold for profit or used for profit without direct permission from the original authors.

You are correct in that nobody has their arms twisted before they contribute here, but it would be very simple for you to include the Forums as well as the Articles as "protected" intellectual property.

The fact that you evidently seem to have a problem with this simple undertaking is, quite frankly, troubling.

[Uncle Silly]

Attroll, my take on your latest post is this:

Images=originator
Articles=originator
Posts in Forums=WhiteBlaze

That's my take on Troll's explanation as well, although I concur that the site's copyright notice does not precisely reflect this. See here:

All content posted on the message boards and gallery of WhiteBlaze is the exclusive intellectual property of WhiteBlaze. Copyright ownership resides in that content by WhiteBlaze and the Company is free to use any of the content as they wish. Anyone other than WhiteBlaze seeking to reprint, republish, or reproduce content posted on the WhiteBlaze message boards must receive the express written permission from the Webmaster of the WhiteBlaze forum in which the content was posted. By posting on the WhiteBlaze message boards you are agreeing to the above and relinquishing all copyright to the contents of the post(s) to WhiteBlaze.

Everything after the second sentence references the forums/message boards only. However, that first sentence lays claim to the images in the gallery as well. Also, the distinction between "articles" and "message boards" is not made here.

To put it bluntly, I believe Troll and Rock have no wish to deprive us of the fruits of our creative endeavors, but I also believe that copyright notices like this should be as precise as possible. If the policy is understood to be one thing, the notice shouldn't be saying something else.

Perhaps a solution is to amend the copyright notice to the effect that posting an image or article grants to Whiteblaze a non-exclusive license for their use of that image or article. Then Whiteblaze needs no further permission for any further use, but there's no question that the copyright is held by the original author.

[Cosmic Crusader]

Perhaps someone else cares about this. It could happen!

Thread count shows people do care about this and thats why there are lots of laws and acts and such based around this very subject. I do not mean to downplay your question and hope you have not taken it as such, I just see such threads as floundering in personal opinion and losing touch with what is actual fact vs view.
Like I said before if you want to make money on it some day keep it to yourself - and this goes for picts writing ideas multiple word combos and cool names... kinda sucks for those that just want to be entertained at the keyboard but its the folks that have a creative spirit in how to steal or screw others that spoil it.
WB admins and users do not seem to fit this profile but that does not change laws or legal wording -

your trip seems v cool - good luck and enjoy
thus ends my useless opinion.

[attroll]

That's my take on Troll's explanation as well, although I concur that the site's copyright notice does not precisely reflect this. See here:



Everything after the second sentence references the forums/message boards only. However, that first sentence lays claim to the images in the gallery as well. Also, the distinction between "articles" and "message boards" is not made here.

To put it bluntly, I believe Troll and Rock have no wish to deprive us of the fruits of our creative endeavors, but I also believe that copyright notices like this should be as precise as possible. If the policy is understood to be one thing, the notice shouldn't be saying something else.

Perhaps a solution is to amend the copyright notice to the effect that posting an image or article grants to Whiteblaze a non-exclusive license for their use of that image or article. Then Whiteblaze needs no further permission for any further use, but there's no question that the copyright is held by the original author.

It has now been rewritten:

All content posted on the message boards and gallery of WhiteBlaze are the exclusive intellectual property of WhiteBlaze and the poster. Copyright ownership resides in that content by WhiteBlaze and the poster. Anyone other than WhiteBlaze seeking to reprint, republish, or reproduce content posted on the WhiteBlaze message boards must receive the express written permission from the Webmaster of the WhiteBlaze forum in which the content was posted or the poster.

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

Well, all righty then.... that's completely clear.

[Uncle Silly]

Definitely a step in the right direction. Thank you, Troll. I'm still a bit concerned at the second sentence but I'm stumped for an alternative.

[Jack Tarlin]

This doesn't solve the problem at all, Rick; it effectively leaves the poster out of the loop again. Theoretically, as you've re-written it, a Webmaster could give permission to re-print a Whiteblaze post to anyone we wanted to, and that person could then do anything he wished with it, including sell it or make money off of it.....without the original author being consulted at all.

What is so difficult about re-writing it so it says nothing can be re-printed or re-published without permission of the Webmaster AND the original author?

Right now, it says you need permission from the Webmaster OR the author, which effectively leaves the original author with no options whatsoever if the Webmaster decides to do something with the material that the original author dis-approves of.

People should be able to post stuff here with full confidence that someone isn't going to take their writing at a date and re-use it, sell it, or make a profit off of it. The authors who contribute here deserve to have this wish respected, and I can't for the life of me see what the big problem is here.

Material that appears here should not be re-published or published for profit elsewhere without the original author's knowledge and blessing. This is not that difficult a consept.

[rafe]

Material that appears here should not be re-published or published for profit elsewhere without the original author's knowledge and blessing. This is not that difficult a consept.

Wassamatta Jack. Worried that someone's gonna get rich off of "moosecock?"

[Jack Tarlin]

Ya know Terrapin, if you ever actually contributed anything here that was worth anything or had any redeemable value, you might share my concernes.

But I can understand why you don't.

[dixicritter]

Actually I thought we did a darn fine job of reworking that in under 2 hours, given that SGT Rock is currently unavailable for conference. We are doing the best we can to make what we've said here in this thread match the copyright notice as closely as possible.

[Rift Zone]

Clearly a step in the right direction, Dixicritter... I am thankful.

[Alligator]

Ease off there a second Jack. They started off with "Copyright ownership resides in that content by WB and the poster." That last or should probably be an and but give them some slack to get a second edit .

All content posted on the message boards and gallery of WhiteBlaze are the exclusive intellectual property of WhiteBlaze and the poster. Copyright ownership resides in that content by WhiteBlaze and the poster. Anyone other than WhiteBlaze seeking to reprint, republish, or reproduce content posted on the WhiteBlaze message boards must receive the express written permission from the Webmaster of the WhiteBlaze forum in which the content was posted or the poster.

[Tin Man]

Ah, unless ATTroll is an attorney, I would suggest that any legal binding agreement be reviewed by an attorney to ensure that the intent of the agreement is properly worded and will hold up as a legal binding agreement.

[Appalachian Tater]

Ah, unless ATTroll is an attorney, I would suggest that any legal binding agreement be reviewed by an attorney to ensure that the intent of the agreement is properly worded and will hold up as a legal binding agreement.

Usually people just copy this sort of thing from the big sites that have lawyers on staff to write them.