Intellectual Property Rights

[Strange]

I was reminded of this by something I wrote in another thread.

There is nothing in the BAUT rules about the ownership of copyright or other IP in messages posted on this forum. I would assume copyright should be assigned to the forum so that posters cannot complain about having their posts edited/deleted (or even not deleted) by the moderators.

There is no clear case law for this (in any jursidictions I am aware of) and if there were a particularly argumentative/litigious member, they could exploit this to cause problems.

You might need some wording to ensure it is only the copy posted on the forum that becomes the property of BAUT; in particular to allow the posters in the astrophotography forum to maintain ownership of their work.

And then, I don't know if BAUT is a legal entity that is allowed to own copyright...

I should add: IANAL (but have been responsible for IPR in the past).

[HenrikOlsen]

Any attempted change in rules to claim copyright will be tantamount to theft unless they specifically list a cutoff date for posts that are exempt from this.

[Strange]

Any attempted change in rules to claim copyright will be tantamount to theft unless they specifically list a cutoff date for posts that are exempt from this.

Good point. Although it is not clear that they don't own the copyright already. I have seen (inconclusive) legal arguments on both sides.

[HenrikOlsen]

Check the Berne Convention as it applies to electronic publishing of text.
I would be very interested to hear under which theory the publication of original material such as the current post on this board is NOT copyrighted.

The times it's been discussed here has been in the context of whether quoting [parts of] a post in other posts is a violation, where the consensus has been that this is acceptable use in compliance with an implicit usage license and doesn't imply a challenge to the copyright. (Though quoting without attribution technically is a violation).

[Strange]

It is a while since I looked into this. I think the argument may have been along the lines of: if the forum rules give the moderators the right to make arbitrary changes, including deletion, of content does that imply they have ownership. It didn't go undisputed.

However, the consensus was that forums should be explicit about ownership. So if BAUT considers that the members retain ownership of their posts then it may be worth adding something to the rules to make that clear.

[HenrikOlsen]

I think the consensus was that this editorializing is in accordance with an implied license granted the board managers and doesn't require relinquishing copyright.

[Strange]

I just hear the voice of our old legal counsel whispering in my ear: in that case we should document the terms of that license...
(we did have to just ignore him sometimes).

OK. Leaving it there.

[HenrikOlsen]

I quite agree with that, an explicit license is better than one implied by how forum discussions are generally handled.

But any attempt at bypassing this by requiring copyright is handed over will in my opinion be a really bad idea.

[Gillianren]

I suspect that, since none of the mods are lawyers, they don't feel qualified to make a statement on the subject.

[grapes]

I quite agree with that, an explicit license is better than one implied by how forum discussions are generally handled.

As a rule of thumb, that's probably a good one. The more transperancy the better for all involved, in this case. One of the things that is in our favor is that we quite clearly have no resources that might attract a lawsuit of opportunity.

But any attempt at bypassing this by requiring copyright is handed over will in my opinion be a really bad idea.

BAUT has first rights, and can publish/edit within its advertised framework. Malicious misattributions or misquotes are considered actionable, by us, but we've never set a standard for form or completeness.

Think of it as a white/black board. As soon as you write upon the wall of the board, you have a copyright to what you have written. But you are responsible for ensuring that your material survives. We do not guarantee archive, or recovery. You may need to maintain your own copy. I would not depend upon BAUT if you someday try to establish precedence. Some artworks, which would be lost forever, are protected from destruction--but the forum posts are not. An author has simple, cheap, available methods for preserving their work.

I suspect that, since none of the mods are lawyers, they don't feel qualified to make a statement on the subject.

O no, you can't get rid of us that way!

The laws are reasonable, there's nothing to be afraid of.