# Public Domain



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 9, 2014)

When people go to forums and post, such as on discussion and debate forums, is it okay to post what they say on another forum? Secondly, is it okay to present those discussions in a book? 

Since most forum users are anonymous and do not reveal who they actually are, it would seem to me that there would be nothing wrong with doing this, but, for the book I have in mind I am thinking of using actual discussions on forums, and just wondering if anyone here might be able to tell me if this might create conflict, which might force me to use fictional discussions for illustrative purposes.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Dec 9, 2014)

First of all never get involved in a political/religious debate here. That generally is an absolute no-no.

As far as using forum posts for you book, I imagine you'd be okay as long as you changed the names, maybe ask permissions.

I'm actually using some of the handles here (with their permissions) for the WIP I'm working on. It's actually more of a sign of affection in my case. I don't know how others would feel about your case, but again if in doubt, I'd just ask permission.

BTW: If you want to use any of my posts absolutely feel free to :smile:


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 9, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> First of all never get involved in a political/religious debate here. That generally is an absolute no-no.



You can rest easy there, Mustard, because political debate is not really my thing (though I do have my perspectives in that as well) and my usual practice, or principle, in Theological debate is that this takes place only as a response. The reason for that is that it makes the debate moot if it is a result of an effort on my part. Or in other words...I try not to engage in either discussion or debate unless it is through invitation. 

This forum is a writer's forum, so it is necessary to keep that context, lol. If I do decide to post anything I have written, then it would likely either be a Theological effort or, if fiction, have a Theological element to it, which you can tell me now whether that would be a "no-no" itself, or all literary efforts are accepted here.




mrmustard615 said:


> As far as using forum posts for you book, I imagine you'd be okay as long as you changed the names, maybe ask permissions.



Well, that's the thing I wonder about, because most users have already done that. In other words, they use anonymous names and do not reveal personal information (which is something I recommend for everyone unless it is a matter of a public effort or ministry where real names are used anyway), and they have presented their statements in a public setting where, unlike perhaps posting of a work like we see here, there is no impression of ownership in view. 

What I need to know is that for certain...this does not infringe on anyone's "rights."



mrmustard615 said:


> I'm actually using some of the handles here (with their permissions) for the WIP I'm working on. It's actually more of a sign of affection in my case. I don't know how others would feel about your case, but again if in doubt, I'd just ask permission.



Great advice. It might actually cause some to put a little more effort in their responses, lol.




mrmustard615 said:


> BTW: If you want to use any of my posts absolutely feel free to :smile:



Sorry, we would have to engage in some Theological Discussion or Debate (there is a difference), lol. 



Who knows? Just from the short time I have been here I feel that I have gained some valuable insight. Like I have said before, there are some unique characteristics in a community like this as opposed to theologically centered forums. To find a rule like this...




> Post Length: Excessively short posts and one-liners are discouraged. We realize at times these are appropriate, but please use good judgement. Excessive use of any of these will result in posts being removed.




...is like a little kid entering a candy store and being told everything is free, lol. 

What  great rule!

What I am used to is complaints about post length, which is usually a tactic of deflection one uses when they cannot address the points in a debate. 

So no worries, I am not here to evangelize this forum, lol, but here to benefit from the forum for what it is. Enjoying it so far, and hope to be able to draw from the experience and perspective of those here.

So thanks for the permission in advance to quote you, I may just have to work you in there somewhere.

- - - Updated - - -

If anyone else would like to give their perspective concerning being quoted in a book (referring of course to a quote from a forum) it would be appreciated.


----------



## Bishop (Dec 9, 2014)

I would highly recommend against it.

Words said on a forum have a nice public record as to who said them, and while permissions and legal issues may be gray (or they may not be, I'm not sure myself), you're still using someone else's words in your creative work. And it's easy to trace to the real owner thanks to the immortality of the internet. Furthermore, some of the writers on this site use their real names or pen names.

Like that Patrick C. Bishop dude.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Dec 9, 2014)

Bishop said:


> Like that Patrick C. Bishop dude.



Patrick C. Bishop? Never heard of him :roll:


----------



## Bishop (Dec 9, 2014)

mrmustard615 said:


> Patrick C. Bishop? Never heard of him :roll:



Exactly. Because he wastes his whole day on WF instead of actually writing.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 9, 2014)

I knew it, I knew it...writers do have a sense of humor!

lol

Hilarious.

Hey thanks for the feedback.

Bishop, I think you are probably right, and I am thinking asking specific permission, as suggested before, is a commonsense approach. Like I said before, it might actually give good cause for a better structured presentation on the part of the antagonist, which can only be beneficial to the project as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -


By the way, Bishop, your icon really brings to mind Piers Anthony and his Xanth series. Ever read any of those?


----------



## Bishop (Dec 9, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> By the way, Bishop, your icon really brings to mind Piers Anthony and his Xanth series. Ever read any of those?



I have not. Though if it involves dragons on piles of panties, I might have to. You'll soon find, though, my reading expertise goes deep into science fiction, not so much fantasy. Or really, any other genre. I'm a bit of a one-trick-pony.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Dec 9, 2014)

Incidentally I write comedy and satire mostly. Bet you would never have guessed. :icon_cheesygrin:


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 9, 2014)

Bishop said:


> I have not. Though if it involves dragons on piles of panties, I might have to. You'll soon find, though, my reading expertise goes deep into science fiction, not so much fantasy. Or really, any other genre. I'm a bit of a one-trick-pony.



Nothing wrong with that. Just saw "Edge of Tomorrow" and thought that was a great movie. But I am fond of both fantasy as well as good sci-fi.

If you do any reading for entertainment I might suggest Peirs Anthony's Adept series novels.  (sorry for missing the A in the link) It merges fantasy and sci-fi and you might like it. The Xanth series is more, in my view, an attempt to mix humor and fantasy (though in that series too there is a sci-fi counterpart to Xanth). I just remember liking them as a kid.

The fiction I have in mind would be more apocalyptic and would also merge the two genres with a bit (I hope) of realism based in scientific understanding which would unveil the "fantasy" or magical quality ascribed to the unknown. I remember as a kid seeing moving billboards and thinking that would never happen (or at least viewing with that mentality), and the truth is that we owe a lot to the concepts of sci-fi writers, because they thought it up and gave ideas for research. 




mrmustard615 said:


> Incidentally I write comedy and satire mostly. Bet you would never have guessed. :icon_cheesygrin:



Well, you know what they say..."even the blind dog finds the water bowl once in a while." lol

I would have figured it out, I'm sure.

My sense of humor gets me in trouble sometimes, and blaming it on an Irish heritage never gets me off the hook for some strange reason. I think one of my favorite types of humor is more dry, and perhaps ad lib. The ability to create humor in mundane conversations just tickles me, though it doesn't always tickle those who hear it, lol. Kind of a Hawkeye Pierce (M*A*S*H) type of humor, if you know what I mean.


----------



## bazz cargo (Dec 9, 2014)

Hello S. T. Ranger,
Welcome to WF

I am quite happy to engage in Theological warfare, but only by PM or as part of a private group. I do not have a sense of humour. 

Regards
BC


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Dec 9, 2014)

bazz cargo said:


> Hello S. T. Ranger,
> Welcome to WF
> 
> I am quite happy to engage in Theological warfare, but only by PM or as part of a private group. I do not have a sense of humour.
> ...




HA!!  :highly_amused:


----------



## InstituteMan (Dec 9, 2014)

From a legal point of view, nothing posted here is in the public domain. My very words in this reply are protected by copyright as I type them, at least in the US. If you copy them, I could (at least theoretically) register the copyright and sue for infringement. Whether that is worth the time and effort and expense is a different question. 

If there's something you see online, or anywhere else, for that matter, that you would like to use, asking for permission to use it and attributing the source is the best idea all the way around.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 10, 2014)

bazz cargo said:


> Hello S. T. Ranger,
> Welcome to WF



Thank you, everyone seems  very welcoming here, which is a little foreign when one is used to delving into antagonistic postions, so it has been very refreshing.




bazz cargo said:


> I am quite happy to engage in Theological warfare, but only by PM or as part of a private group.



As a matter of policy I do not engage in "private" discussion, first and foremost out of respect for my wife, so a PM discussion is not an option. However, a private group is something altogether different, as long as it is a group. 

Not sure if you said this because this is an option on this forum (a private group), but I have made it clear that I will abide by the Moderator's statement about politics and religion, so I do not want to go against an already declared "no-no," lol.

I am glad to hear you are happy to engage in theological discussion, though. If it becomes an opportunity somehow I look forward to it.




bazz cargo said:


> I do not have a sense of humour.



Everyone has a sense of humor, some have just not developed theirs very well, lol.




bazz cargo said:


> Regards
> BC



Thanks again for the welcome. Let me know about these "private groups."

- - - Updated - - -

And I just saw you are a Global Moderator, lol, so let me know if a discussion can be arranged.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 10, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> From a legal point of view, nothing posted here is in the public domain. My very words in this reply are protected by copyright as I type them, at least in the US. If you copy them, I could (at least theoretically) register the copyright and sue for infringement. Whether that is worth the time and effort and expense is a different question.



This is curious. I think perhaps that you would be right, for the most part, but, if it actually went into a legal setting I think the opposite argument could be offered. For example, I have seen cases where something someone said in public social media was introduced as evidence. Now I am not sure if warrants were sought and issued to collect the data, but I doubt seriously they were. The argument the defense could offer is "They had no right because it was not in the Public Domain," however, I would think it would be more like a trash can on the street (and the way some people talk...lol) where rights have been lost. I think the majority would agree that there is no expectation of privacy.

But as I said, this is why I am asking, because I am not sure. At this point, I think the best approach is as some have said, ask for permission and it becomes a moot point.

- - - Updated - - -



mrmustard615 said:


> HA!!  :highly_amused:



So they do have a sense of humor?


----------



## popsprocket (Dec 10, 2014)

There's no expectation of privacy but that doesn't give anyone else the right to copy the words on this site and try to pass them off as their own. A judge would probably toss the case out, but you're still in the wrong for copying them.


----------



## Cran (Dec 10, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> When people go to forums and post, such as on discussion and debate forums, is it okay to post what they say on another forum? Secondly, is it okay to present those discussions in a book?
> 
> Since most forum users are anonymous and do not reveal who they actually are, it would seem to me that there would be nothing wrong with doing this, but, for the book I have in mind I am thinking of using actual discussions on forums, and just wondering if anyone here might be able to tell me if this might create conflict, which might force me to use fictional discussions for illustrative purposes.



You have three considerations here: 

The first and most basic is due accreditation - if you quote any material from someone else, regardless of how or where it is set down in recordable form, you need to provide some sort of citation to source (at least author, time, location). 

Next is the nature of access to the platform. Writing forums, like this one, tend to have both open access and limited access - eg, members only - areas where discussions take place. The provisions for academic research aside, in most circumstances permissions in writing will need to be sought for reproducing material sourced from limited access platforms. 

Third is publication rights. Here you not only need to consider the rights of the originator (writer, artist) of the material, but also the rights of the entity which presents and houses the material. Copyright is vested in the originator at the instant of the material or work being set down in a recordable form; publishing rights are either held by the publishing entity, or shared between that entity and the originator. In other words, you may need to negotiate publishing rights with both the originator and the forum owner or management before publishing the intended work. 



Bishop said:


> I have not. Though if it involves dragons on piles of panties, I might have to. You'll soon find, though, my reading expertise goes deep into science fiction, not so much fantasy. Or really, any other genre. I'm a bit of a one-trick-pony.


Well, Xanth does have dragons and panties - one volume, _The Colour of Her Panties_, is devoted to the latter. Xanth was created in dimension where the _pun_ is a fundamental unit of matter and energy.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 10, 2014)

Cran said:


> You have three considerations here:
> 
> The first and most basic is due accreditation - if you quote any material from someone else, regardless of how or where it is set down in recordable form, you need to provide some sort of citation to source (at least author, time, location).
> 
> ...



Thanks, Cran, I appreciate this.

I actually have a forum where I import debates for the purpose of helping people learn how to debate by both learning how their antagonist thinks, what they believe, and what I (of course, lol) believe is proper response. From what you say here it seems I would not be infringing on others' rights if I post a link (which is usually within most of the posts presented), but it might get complicated if there is a special section of a particular forum?

And by the way, I am not importing discussions from this site, this is strictly a research (and hopefully a fellowship) endeavor, lol.



Cran said:


> Well, Xanth does have dragons and panties - one volume, _The Colour of Her Panties_, is devoted to the latter. Xanth was created in dimension where the _pun_ is a fundamental unit of matter and energy.



I read this when I was younger (and I'll never tell how much younger, lol). I liked these books because I enjoy humor, as well as sci-fi/fantasy. Easy to read, and not really anything very complex, but if someone is looking for entertainment, these books might fit the bill.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 10, 2014)

popsprocket said:


> There's no expectation of privacy but that doesn't give anyone else the right to copy the words on this site and try to pass them off as their own. A judge would probably toss the case out, but you're still in the wrong for copying them.



Now this would be a different matter from documenting a debate, I would think. In Theological Discussion it is just as bad to try to claim original author status even in theological concepts. Usually, when someone comes across with a "The truth and has been lost and I am here to restore/reveal it" this is usually going to be a red flag. This is actually the reverse of the goal, which is exegesis of an existing work which no-one questions is both public domain as well as not an original concept, doctrine, or private possession.

If someone tries to take credit for something they say, it is usually considered one of the worst forms of deceit, basically. 

But that is what separates Theological Discussion from plagiarism of a more mundane type.


----------



## Cran (Dec 10, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> Thanks, Cran, I appreciate this.
> 
> I actually have a forum where I import debates for the purpose of helping people learn how to debate by both learning how their antagonist thinks, what they believe, and what I (of course, lol) believe is proper response. From what you say here it seems I would not be infringing on others' rights if I post a link (which is usually within most of the posts presented), but it might get complicated if there is a special section of a particular forum?


Yes; that's when the extra care needs to be taken.



> And by the way, I am not importing discussions from this site, this is strictly a research (and hopefully a fellowship) endeavor, lol.


There are provisions available for academic or research works within the Fair Use/Fair Trading Acts of each country which has such. Due reference to source remains a requirement. 



> I read this when I was younger (and I'll never tell how much younger, lol). I liked these books because I enjoy humor, as well as sci-fi/fantasy. Easy to read, and not really anything very complex, but if someone is looking for entertainment, these books might fit the bill.


As with Pratchett's Discworld, I don't have as many volumes as I would like.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 10, 2014)

Cran said:


> Yes; that's when the extra care needs to be taken.
> 
> 
> There are provisions available for academic or research works within the Fair Use/Fair Trading Acts of each country which has such. Due reference to source remains a requirement.



Thanks for the valuable input.




Cran said:


> As with Pratchett's Discworld, I don't have as many volumes as I would like.



I was just never able to really get into these. It may be I didn't read enough of them to get hooked.

I'll tell you one that I have not read, Philip K. Dick. I think he is the one that wrote Total Recall, Paycheck, and Minority Report. Just checked, he has more than those, lol, Blade Runner being one of them. But the point is, never read what he wrote so it may be I would enjoy his books (which are usually better than the movies). 

But I haven't really had time to invest in reading for entertainment for a while, perhaps one day I might get the chance to get in a little catching up.

- - - Updated - - -

Also didn't read Asimov, but enjoyed I, Robot very much.


----------



## InstituteMan (Dec 10, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> This is curious. I think perhaps that you would be right, for the most part, but, if it actually went into a legal setting I think the opposite argument could be offered. For example, I have seen cases where something someone said in public social media was introduced as evidence. Now I am not sure if warrants were sought and issued to collect the data, but I doubt seriously they were. The argument the defense could offer is "They had no right because it was not in the Public Domain," however, I would think it would be more like a trash can on the street (and the way some people talk...lol) where rights have been lost. I think the majority would agree that there is no expectation of privacy.
> 
> But as I said, this is why I am asking, because I am not sure. At this point, I think the best approach is as some have said, ask for permission and it becomes a moot point.



While I think Cran did a thorough job of addressing this issue, I do want to chime in to emphasize that copyrights don't really have anything to do with privacy or what can be introduced as evidence in court. Just because something can be evidence, or just because sharing that something isn't going to get you sued for invasion of privacy does not mean that you can copy it and distribute it yourself.

I have represented clients in copyright infringement lawsuits where the works were abundantly out there "in the public domain" in the sense that they were readily available for those who wanted to access them, sometimes even for free, but that didn't make them "in the public domain" in the sense that anyone could copy them and present them as their own. I can't and won't give legal advice here or anywhere else on the Internet, but I also don't want anyone to get confused and think that something is free to use just because it was on the Internet, or because it didn't have a copyright notice on it, or because the author was anonymous. I am not exaggerating when I say that if you can perceive it, it can be protected by copyright. As writers, we, of all people, should respect that.


----------



## Schrody (Dec 10, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> I'll tell you one that I have not read, Philip K. Dick. I think he is the one that wrote Total Recall, Paycheck, and Minority Report. Just checked, he has more than those, lol, Blade Runner being one of them.



Blade Runner is a movie. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" is a book.


----------



## aj47 (Dec 10, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> From a legal point of view, nothing posted here is in the public domain. My very words in this reply are protected by copyright as I type them, at least in the US. If you copy them, I could (at least theoretically) register the copyright and sue for infringement. Whether that is worth the time and effort and expense is a different question.
> 
> If there's something you see online, or anywhere else, for that matter, that you would like to use, asking for permission to use it and attributing the source is the best idea all the way around.



What he said.  I'm not a lawyer but he his. 

If what you post in a creative thread is automatically copyrighted ... it follows logically that what you post in other threads are auto-copyrighted, too.  At least in many countries.  And since the forum is international ... no matter where YOU are, what you post here is copyrighted somewhere.

We had an entire unit on this sort of thing in my tech writing class.  If someone leaves a wallet with $500 lying around and you find it, it's still not your money.  The same rule applies to words/images/etc. found online.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 11, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> While I think Cran did a thorough job of addressing this issue, I do want to chime in to emphasize that copyrights don't really have anything to do with privacy or what can be introduced as evidence in court. Just because something can be evidence, or just because sharing that something isn't going to get you sued for invasion of privacy does not mean that you can copy it and distribute it yourself.



I have begun researching this and learned some interesting information this morning concerning public domain and rights. I was surprised to learn that one has to gain permission to quote...the Bible! lol

Of course, this is if you use a particular version, which I saw several that you can write to gain permission, which they say can take 6-8 weeks, or, 2 days for $150.

It seems that, as one member (I think it was actually several) said what is written is automatically protected, the benefit of registering has to do more with the ability to sue. While work is protected automatically, if one were forced to pursue legal action, being registered makes it easier to be successful.





InstituteMan said:


> I have represented clients in copyright infringement lawsuits where the works were abundantly out there "in the public domain" in the sense that they were readily available for those who wanted to access them, sometimes even for free, but that didn't make them "in the public domain" in the sense that anyone could copy them and present them as their own. I can't and won't give legal advice here or anywhere else on the Internet, but I also don't want anyone to get confused and think that something is free to use just because it was on the Internet, or because it didn't have a copyright notice on it, or because the author was anonymous. I am not exaggerating when I say that if you can perceive it, it can be protected by copyright.



My primary concern is about using mundane conversations in forums. Not directly plagiarizing a specific work. I thin this has been adequately addressed by making sure direct permission is given by the participant, which, I plan on using only conversations which are specifically stated as being used, rather than going through old debates to use as examples. But you might, as a lawyer, have valuable insight to that as well. Would a statement made on a forum, for example...



> Me: Hello random Forum Member, before we start, I am looking for discussions and debates to use in a Book, so is it okay if I use our parts (or all) of our discussion in that Book?
> 
> RFM: Sure, that would be great!




Would that be acceptable as permission, or would I need written permission from that member specifically? I always encourage people to remain anonymous due to the fact that we live in a crazy world, and there are some nuts out there, so written permission would entail an address which I am not willing to divulge for the sake of my own family's protection.




InstituteMan said:


> As writers, we, of all people, should respect that.



Agreed. It is not much different in Theological Discussion and debate. It is just good form to credit teachings or concepts (whether they are positive or negative) to the original author.

Thanks for the post.

- - - Updated - - -



Schrody said:


> Blade Runner is a movie. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" is a book.



Understood.

Liked this movie as a kid (let's face it, not much to choose from in Sci-fi back then), but it's a little slow for me now. Cool concept, but just drags a bit.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 11, 2014)

astroannie said:


> What he said.  I'm not a lawyer but he his.



I am accused of being one sometimes, lol, which is not complimentary in the minds of most people in Theological Discussion, though I think the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater when we criminalize, or vilify something that still has a place in Theology. It is necessary, just as it is in a legal setting, to have people that understand the Law and properly interpret it. 




astroannie said:


> If what you post in a creative thread is automatically copyrighted ... it follows logically that what you post in other threads are auto-copyrighted, too.  At least in many countries.  And since the forum is international ... no matter where YOU are, what you post here is copyrighted somewhere.



You qualify this with "creative," which I would think goes to intent. Perhaps Institute Man might give his perspective on it. 
I don't think anyone could argue that when we are simply having a discussion we are protected from repercussions those words might have. This would make a case for denying admissibility to statements because they have "a right to privacy."

I agree, we do, however, when we go into a public arena we remove that right because none of us are unaware that we are doing just that. If copyright laws extended to statements to such a degree then there are quite a few lawsuits that would be on the books today. Often Theologians point out the errors of those whose theological teachings they feel are in error, and sometimes quoting is not only brutal, lol, but is definitely not something that anyone in their right mind would yield permission for.

You do raise a great point, though, which would be the laws of another country, and even the specific permissions that might be needed on/from a particular forum, which someone also mentioned.

That's what I need to get straight before writing the first word, lol.

And I again, I think more in view of copyright issues would be whether it is "creative work" or not. While some of my antagonists might view my Theology as "creative," lol, the fact is that the views I express are not original, but a Doctrinal issue which cannot be copyrighted. Now where concepts and teachings differ from an orthodox or accepted view or teaching, such a complaint might be registered, however, we would then be getting into the realm of criticism, which, as long as it is not slanderous or libelous, is not against the law, as far as I know (though I am researching that as well, lol).



astroannie said:


> We had an entire unit on this sort of thing in my tech writing class.  If someone leaves a wallet with $500 lying around and you find it, it's still not your money.  The same rule applies to words/images/etc. found online.



Again, I think we are comparing apples with oranges, because we might find in that wallet identification which shows whose money it might be. It is the law that might clarify who it belongs to, and prescribe proper steps to finding a home for this $500. If it is not claimed, the one finding it has a right to it, and in that sense he is the proper owner, until otherwise the original owner is found.

For example, if I quoted you saying this here, without your permission, on another forum, what is the likelihood that I could get in trouble? Can you claim ownership of the concept in your statement? What it would more entail would be that it is simply a personal statement, and you might feel I don't have the right to tell others what you say. 

That's what I am trying to get to. Perhaps this forum has guidelines which might prohibit it, and perhaps, if they do not cover this type of quotation, it might be a good idea to look into it, but...would they, or anyone else, including yourself really care? 

Only if it places you, by reason of what you said...in a bad light. And that is something I can understand. Let's say someone was just having a bad day, and said something they may not ordinarily say on a good day. They say, "Demuplicans (fictional political body) are stupid, and they should have their voter cards revoked." This is then taken to a political forum and used to illustrate "the typical Remocrat's response." And let's make it more personal, the original poster uses their real name. So J. Q. Secular finds what he said written in a book, and says "Hey...that doesn't represent my true beliefs, and everyone can see that in my posting!"

So does his anger at being quoted have a case for suing the author, when what he said, despite the fact he is having a bad day, was spoken in a public forum where privacy is relinquished extensively. This would, in my opinion, infringe on the rights of others that have a right to know what it is that any given person communicates, especially in a public format. And I think history will verify that a person does not have a "right" to regulate what it is they want the public to know they said, and what they actually have said. This is how we expose corrupt politicians, false teachers, and hypocritical public figures from all walks of life.

Right?

Again, this is why this is brought up, not just to know what to avoid in quotation, but to also get the perspectives of those here. We have that which is legal, and then the perspectives of people on those issues, which often are divisive, controversial, (rightly, sometimes) contradicted, and challenged. 

For the project I am attempting, it is vital that before even the Title is written, I have a clear understanding of what to expect. But from what I understand in Theological works dealing with apologetic material, it doesn't seem to be an issue. It would be impossible for a Court of Law to mediate between opposing Theological Systems, lol, and it is something that I think might be still protected when we get to the heart of the matter.

And sorry, didn't mean to get too long, but this is an important issue for me, and I appreciate the input.


----------



## InstituteMan (Dec 11, 2014)

Hey, ST, the bar ethics committee would tap dance on my head if I gave legal advice online, so I fear I can't really go beyond explaining the basic parameters of the law, so I can't give answers to hypothetical scenarios or real life situations. You do seem to be getting up to speed on some of the intricacies of copyright law, however. The key is to dig in and learn the actual law, not to go with what "feels" right or what someone said about this thing that happened to their cousin. There's a lot of misinformation out there.


----------



## Schrody (Dec 11, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> Understood.
> 
> Liked this movie as a kid (let's face it, not much to choose from in Sci-fi back then), but it's a little slow for me now. Cool concept, but just drags a bit.



I didn't say you have to like it, just wanted to inform those who didn't know there's a book too  I personally liked the book better.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 11, 2014)

Schrody said:


> I didn't say you have to like it, just wanted to inform those who didn't know there's a book too  I personally liked the book better.



The book...is always better. lol

That was the problem with a lot of sci-fi movies back then. One was the normal length which meant a condensed version, usually. Another was a limitation in special effects. I remember as a kid thinking that no-one would ever be able to make a good version of The Lord of the Rings (remember the animated versions?), but due to great length and advances in special effects a great representation was made. 

Now if they would just do Sword of Shannara...

- - - Updated - - -



InstituteMan said:


> Hey, ST, the bar ethics committee would tap dance on my head if I gave legal advice online, so I fear I can't really go beyond explaining the basic parameters of the law, so I can't give answers to hypothetical scenarios or real life situations. You do seem to be getting up to speed on some of the intricacies of copyright law, however. The key is to dig in and learn the actual law, not to go with what "feels" right or what someone said about this thing that happened to their cousin. There's a lot of misinformation out there.



I agree wholeheartedly. I have already started researching it, and like I said, it behooves me, before writing, to understand this thoroughly. Not that I might attain to a level you have, mind you, but, I see no reason why I can at least avoid some pitfalls. 

Can you recommend a source for the actual law? While I hesitate to ask this, because I am worried you will, lol, I do agree we have to look at the source where there is no dispute to what is actually written.


----------



## dale (Dec 11, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> When people go to forums and post, such as on discussion and debate forums, is it okay to post what they say on another forum? Secondly, is it okay to present those discussions in a book?
> 
> Since most forum users are anonymous and do not reveal who they actually are, it would seem to me that there would be nothing wrong with doing this, but, for the book I have in mind I am thinking of using actual discussions on forums, and just wondering if anyone here might be able to tell me if this might create conflict, which might force me to use fictional discussions for illustrative purposes.



i try not to CONSCIOUSLY put real life into my fiction. my subconscious does enough of that already, without me even trying to.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 11, 2014)

dale said:


> i try not to CONSCIOUSLY put real life into my fiction. my subconscious does enough of that already, without me even trying to.



I think that is good advice. I have read books which can be distinguished as mechanical, and it's not pretty, lol.


----------



## InstituteMan (Dec 11, 2014)

In terms of a copyright reference, my recommendation is to just go to a public library. There are lots of books for ordinary people on the topic, ranging from fair to outstanding. I normally go to the statute and court decisions, but those are fairly impenetrable to normal, healthy human beings. 

Also, bear in mind that what is or is not an invasion of privacy or is or is not admissible evidence are wholly distinct issues from copyright. You can't look to those areas for guidance as to what is acceptable or not acceptable from a copyright point of view.


----------



## patskywriter (Dec 11, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> … For example, if I quoted you saying this here, without your permission, on another forum, what is the likelihood that I could get in trouble? Can you claim ownership of the concept in your statement? What it would more entail would be that it is simply a personal statement, and you might feel I don't have the right to tell others what you say.
> 
> That's what I am trying to get to. Perhaps this forum has guidelines which might prohibit it, and perhaps, if they do not cover this type of quotation, it might be a good idea to look into it, but...would they, or anyone else, including yourself really care?
> 
> Only if it places you, by reason of what you said...in a bad light. …



My perspective on this subject is colored by the fact that I'm a journalist. I have participated in discussions on forums and on Facebook, and in doing so, usually edit my statements and answers with care. On occasion, I'll come up with something noteworthy, leading to an "Ooh, I like that!" moment where I'll copy and paste it into one of my compilation documents. Later, if one of my statements sparks an idea for an article or fits nicely into a story I'm working on, I'll use it. I can't imagine how I'd feel if I found one of my statements in someone else's copyrighted work—or worse, if I were accused of plagiarism because somebody "beat me to the punch" with my own writing.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 11, 2014)

patskywriter said:


> My perspective on this subject is colored by the fact that I'm a journalist.



This is very helpful, because you actually use quotes regularly and would have, I would think, a very relevant perspective and knowledge on the issue.




patskywriter said:


> I have participated in discussions on forums and on Facebook, and in doing so, usually edit my statements and answers with care.



Meaning you go back and edit what you said later?

One of the problems I would point out is that on an active forum, where discussion runs at a fairly good pace, what is quoted is forever documented in the other's response, to which you would not have opportunity (apart from asking the responder, lol) to refine your statements. In other words, there can be created a permanent record of what was originally said that cannot be modified except perhaps by staff members who have access to that post. And as a journalist, I am assuming that truth maintains a high priority, as well as valid quotation not used out of context (and that's the great thing about the Public Record!). But if staff members of a forum were to engage in intentional tampering with what someone said, that would be an unethical effort which would bring that forum into question.

Let me know if I am properly understanding your statement here.




patskywriter said:


> On occasion, I'll come up with something noteworthy and will copy and paste it into a compilation document of sorts.
> 
> Later, if one of my statements sparks an idea for an article or fits nicely into a story I'm working on, I'll use it.



I can understand that. Sometimes it is in the process of dealing with one issue that another relevant issue can be developed.

What I am not completely sure about is whether it is a matter of someone quoting you and thus beating you to the punch on a "headline" (for lack of a better or more applicable term), thus making your use of it untenable.

I can understand that too, lol. I think originality is something most people take into consideration.




patskywriter said:


> I can't imagine how I'd feel if I found one of my statements in someone else's copyrighted work—



The question would be, though...can someone do that apart from your knowledge in a social media setting? 

In other words, someone uses something you say to create an article about something that may or may not be relevant. Perhaps they found an underlying issue which turns out to be bigger than the original issue the quote is found in. Is that what you mean?

As a Journalist, I would think that the chances of being quoted are higher than the average person, especially if what is reported is called into question. Then it might get specific and the journalist is identified specifically, which could be embarrassing. Do you, as a journalist, have a "right to privacy," or ownership of what you say in a public setting, to the point where you could possibly take legal action (and again, libel and slander, or even poor quotation are not in view, but something you have said in public regardless of whether you were wrong, and have since changed your view)?



patskywriter said:


> or worse, if I were accused of using a statement that appeared in a book or article published before I had the chance to use the statement in question.



Which again leans, it seems, more to entitlement of use, rather than the issue of quotations from public settings. 

If someone were reading a book and recognized themselves in the quote, wouldn't we factor where the quote was made into whether the author has a right to quote them. While I don't know what process is gone through when, for example, Theologians quote and sometimes severely rebuke what other Theologians have said, so I can't say absolutely that those people are not first contacted and permission sought.

I do, however, think it is highly unlikely that some of the things that are addressed have had permission granted by the targeted individual's own work. I just have a hard time, lol, seeing someone saying, "Ok. Sure. I would love you to address my views and expose the weakness and absurdity of my teachings." I doubt seriously that happens. But we have people quoting copyrighted materials, naming the books the quotes are taken from, and again, it is doubtful those quoted either appreciate it, or would grant permission if asked.

Now we translate that to a purely public setting (and again thanks to the one that mentioned particular Forum Policies) where again we have people that have said something in a public setting with no real expectation of privacy because of the public format itself.

That is what I am trying to better understand. Thanks much for the response, because as I said, as a journalist, your understanding and perspective becomes very relevant to the question.


----------



## Schrody (Dec 11, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> The book...is always better. lol
> 
> That was the problem with a lot of sci-fi movies back then. One was the normal length which meant a condensed version, usually. Another was a limitation in special effects. I remember as a kid thinking that no-one would ever be able to make a good version of The Lord of the Rings (remember the animated versions?), but due to great length and advances in special effects a great representation was made.
> 
> Now if they would just do Sword of Shannara...



Not always. Some movies are indeed better than books. Last off.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 11, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Not always. Some movies are indeed better than books. Last off.



I guess I will cede that point, lol. I am actually grateful, for example, to the additions made in The Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit movies. The longer the better as far as I am concerned. That doesn't mean, though, I think the movies are better. I remember one person being very upset that they didn't put Tom Bombadil in the movie, for example.

But I am guessing the Book Blade Runner is based on has to be better than the movie, lol.

- - - Updated - - -

What is "Last off?"


----------



## aj47 (Dec 11, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> You qualify this with "creative," which I would think goes to intent. Perhaps Institute Man might give his perspective on it.
> I don't think anyone could argue that when we are simply having a discussion we are protected from repercussions those words might have. This would make a case for denying admissibility to statements because they have "a right to privacy."



I think you miss the point.  The same auto-copyright that protects your words, also protects the words of others. I was attempting to exemplify that.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 11, 2014)

astroannie said:


> I think you miss the point.  The same auto-copyright that protects your words, also protects the words of others. I was attempting to exemplify that.



I get the point, it's just that precedence indicates to me that, in a legal sense, unless it involves libel, slander, loss of income, or some injurious quality, I doubt that any lawyer would pursue a case where someone became upset about being quoted and felt they had the right to question the quotation. It would actually work in the reverse, I believe, and would protect those that probably wouldn't mind having what they said quoted anyway, though not offer protections in the case of something that is pointed out because it has a negative quality to it. 

But again, that is the purpose of the discussion. As for me, I have already decided that I will seek permission from anyone that I might quote before considering using it.

- - - Updated - - -

In regards to a creative work, I think there is little question that the law stands more in favor of the original author, and his rights take on a more plausible case.


----------



## Schrody (Dec 11, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> What is "Last off?"



Last off topic


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 11, 2014)

Schrody said:


> Last off topic



Can I quote you on that?


----------



## InstituteMan (Dec 11, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> I get the point, it's just that precedence indicates to me that, in a legal sense, unless it involves libel, slander, loss of income, or some injurious quality, I doubt that any lawyer would pursue a case where someone became upset about being quoted and felt they had the right to question the quotation. It would actually work in the reverse, I believe, and would protect those that probably wouldn't mind having what they said quoted anyway, though not offer protections in the case of something that is pointed out because it has a negative quality to it.



No. 

Lawyers take cases (1) with merit from (2) paying clients. Whether issues having nothing to do with copyright infringement are somehow wrapped up in a copyright infringement claim has no bearing on either of those criteria. I have had clients pay me far more money than their (meritorious!) case was worth "to prove a point." I stopped doing frontline litigation like that years ago, in part because, while the money is good, the clients are not always rational about enforcing their rights/opposing those who (in the client's opinion) are making baseless claims of infringement. If you want to get sued, copying an author's words is a great way to get your wish, even without libeling them.


----------



## aj47 (Dec 11, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> I get the point, it's just that precedence indicates to me that, in a legal sense, unless it involves libel, slander, loss of income, or some injurious quality, I doubt that any lawyer would pursue a case where someone became upset about being quoted and felt they had the right to question the quotation. It would actually work in the reverse, I believe, and would protect those that probably wouldn't mind having what they said quoted anyway, though not offer protections in the case of something that is pointed out because it has a negative quality to it.



Look, stealing others property is theft. This includes their words and works. 

And precedent can be overturned.  There is a difference between law and custom.  

The fact that you think this is even debatable says something about you. 

As for me, I'm wasting my keystrokes, apparently.  The last word is yours.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 11, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> No.



"No," meaning the point is invalid as a whole?




InstituteMan said:


> Lawyers take cases (1) with merit from (2) paying clients.



Agreed. However, that does not change whether such a claim would be valid. I imagine publishers take money from authors that write books they know won't sell, as an analogy, that doesn't impact the quality of the book (just as the reverse, good books often don't get published being just as true).




InstituteMan said:


> Whether issues having nothing to do with copyright infringement are somehow wrapped up in a copyright infringement claim has no bearing on either of those criteria.



Again, this would be irrelevant to the issue itself. In view is expectation of either privacy or ownership rights.




InstituteMan said:


> I have had clients pay me far more money than their (meritorious!) case was worth "to prove a point."



To prove the point they would have to win. If they didn't then nothing was achieved. Again, I would use direct address of one Theologian of another when it is unlikely that those addressed would have given approval of such criticism. This goes beyond, say, criticism which is expected by those that produce works subject to criticism, and would be seen as very hostile on the part of those addressing the issues they feel to be in error.




InstituteMan said:


> I stopped doing frontline litigation like that years ago, in part because, while the money is good, the clients are not always rational about enforcing their rights/opposing those who (in the client's opinion) are making baseless claims of infringement.



Not sure I understand this: you mean those that were sued were not rational in their defense? 

If you mean the ones suing, even then, it is still irrelevant to the central issue. And again, I think that there is a certain common sense involved which dictates a relinquishing of "rights" when it pertains to conversation in a public forum. We could ask, "You mean you thought that only certain people would be exposed to what you said?" 




InstituteMan said:


> If you want to get sued, copying an author's words is a great way to get your wish, even without libeling them.



While I think we can rightly use the word "author" when we speak about something someone said, like if we quoted someone who said something funny though we don't know who said it exactly...

"If guns kill people...does that mean pencils misspell words?" (author unknown)

...I would think there is a distinction made in a Court of Law, or perhaps our Legal System in general (and again not dismissing the international complexities which might arise, though not sure exactly that prosecution would be pursued or whether an American citizen could be prosecuted by another country (unless there was enough money to be made in the pursuit, lol)) in regards to authorship of a "product" and simply a discussion between people in a public Forum. We could complicate the issue by inserting an actual creative work in that discussion, but for discussions sake and the sake of simplicity, let's just consider simple discussion of Theology. No-one holds a copyright on Theology, it is diverse and has the additional benefit of itself being protected by freedom of Religion and free speech. So while we could say a post was a "creative effort" by the individual, the question remains, does his "authorship" deny the right of someone else to quote him on it, and could that quote actually be placed in copyrighted material.

And again, I have seen this done very often, and would suggest such "rights of authorship" would in fact, or better, in my opinion, actually stifle truth and allow for perpetuation of action which can be and is seen as detrimental to society. If people had the right to persecute others in this manner then it would serve as a very useful tool for those who could best exploit it.

Thanks again for the response. Often it is the objections or arguments against a particular issue that best helps in the research which might bring a decided conclusion to a matter.


----------



## Schrody (Dec 11, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> Can I quote you on that?



Sure, but it's not my invention, "off topic" is a common phrase on the forums.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 11, 2014)

astroannie said:


> Look, stealing others property is theft.



That's not even in question.

What is in question is what can be reasonably considered "property."




astroannie said:


> This includes their words and works.



Glad you distinguish between the two. Now tell me if you think the words you just used in your response are your personal property and that no-one else has a right to quote you without permission. That they are on a par with your works. Or, that they are part of your works.

Those are questions that I think will better represent what is in view.



astroannie said:


> And precedent can be overturned.



That is highly unlikely. This would be, in my opinion, something that would lean towards unconstitutional.



astroannie said:


> There is a difference between law and custom.



And it is the Law that is in view here. The example refers to a custom that apparently has no legal restraint. 



astroannie said:


> The fact that you think this is even debatable says something about you.



Not sure what you mean. That quoting from a forum and whether there might be legal repercussions could be debatable is evidenced in this thread.



astroannie said:


> As for me, I'm wasting my keystrokes, apparently.



You might feel that way, but your contribution is helpful as well. 

Can't have a debate if no-one is antagonistic, right?



astroannie said:


> The last word is yours.



We shall see.


----------



## J Anfinson (Dec 11, 2014)

Debating is against the forum rules. Further replies should address the original post.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Dec 11, 2014)

bazz cargo said:


> Hello S. T. Ranger,
> Welcome to WF
> 
> I am quite happy to engage in Theological warfare, but only by PM or as part of a private group. I do not have a sense of humour.
> ...





mrmustard615 said:


> HA!!  :highly_amused:





S.T. Ranger said:


> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> 
> 
> So they do have a sense of humor?



I could never accuse Bazz of having a sense of humor.....NOT! :icon_cheesygrin:


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 11, 2014)

J Anfinson said:


> Debating is against the forum rules. Further replies should address the original post.



You run a tight ship, J.

Duly noted, I'll try to behave.


----------



## joshybo (Dec 11, 2014)

> I'll tell you one that I have not read, Philip K. Dick. I think he is the one that wrote Total Recall, Paycheck, and Minority Report. Just checked, he has more than those, lol, Blade Runner being one of them. But the point is, never read what he wrote so it may be I would enjoy his books (which are usually better than the movies).



I am only here to say two things:

1.  I'm always a willing participant in Theological discussion if anybody ever wants to start a respectful (of *all* belief systems) group or what have you.  I saw that come up somewhere in this thread, and I just have a lot of interest in philosophy in general, so it caught my eye in that capacity.

2.  Go read Philip K. Dick right now.  Immediately.  As in you shouldn't still be reading this sentence.

Update:  





> Debating is against the forum rules. Further replies should address the original post.



I skipped to comment before seeing this.  I apologize if my response was off-topic.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 13, 2014)

joshybo said:


> I am only here to say two things:
> 
> 1.  I'm always a willing participant in Theological discussion if anybody ever wants to start a respectful (of *all* belief systems) group or what have you.  I saw that come up somewhere in this thread, and I just have a lot of interest in philosophy in general, so it caught my eye in that capacity.
> 
> ...



I think all discussions are going to have side issues develop which can be commented on without a declaration of "Off-Topic!" lol

No reason side-bar comments should be restrained. Sometimes those are the issues that help develop or bring to a conclusion the focus of the OP. Some issues cannot be resolved unless the discussion is expanded to include the underlying issues which comprise the whole, to include issues of practical use as well.

What I find funny is that the OP is actually inappropriately titled, lol, because Public Domain might be viewed as irrelevant to my original query. I apologize for my ignorance, lol.

- - - Updated - - -

And when I do get the chance...I will pick up a PKD novel. Any suggestions (I would hope I wouldn't have to start a thread to get a response to this, lol)?


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 13, 2014)

S.T. Ranger said:


> When people go to forums and post, such as on discussion and debate forums, is it okay to post what they say on another forum? Secondly, is it okay to present those discussions in a book?
> 
> Since most forum users are anonymous and do not reveal who they actually are, it would seem to me that there would be nothing wrong with doing this, but, for the book I have in mind I am thinking of using actual discussions on forums, and just wondering if anyone here might be able to tell me if this might create conflict, which might force me to use fictional discussions for illustrative purposes.



When I post, I'm posting with the understanding that my words will be represented as I intend them to be. I'm not agreeing in any way that my words can be used elsewhere, in other ways, without my permission.

Best to avoid using people's words without their permission. That's a surefire way to get into a whole heap of trouble.

Get permission first. Then everything will be okay. :encouragement:


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 13, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> When I post, I'm posting with the understanding that my words will be represented as I intend them to be. I'm not agreeing in any way that my words can be used elsewhere, in other ways, without my permission.
> 
> Best to avoid using people's words without their permission. That's a surefire way to get into a whole heap of trouble.
> 
> Get permission first. Then everything will be okay. :encouragement:



Most of us want what we say to be accurately quoted, the question in view here is, though you fee; your words can be quoted only with your permission, is that the case?

There has been a general consensus so far that obtaining permission is the way to go, but I will pose for you the example given previously: often in books that rebuke the views of other Theologians, people are not only quoted but then rebuked in about as negative a light as can be attained, to the point where they and their doctrine is called false. It is unlikely that any of those who have been targets of such rebuke agreed or consented to being quoted. Regularly on forums we see quotes of other members from different threads, for example, which would be, if there were an ownership issue, violating a person's "rights" or ownership, if in fact permission was necessary.

In other words, we can understand how someone would not want to be quoted in a negative light, and feel that their permission should have been obtained before it happens, but since it is stated in a public medium, it seems doubtful to me that there would be any serious recourse one could take. Everyone that enters into a public discussion would (or should) understand that they are speaking publicly, thus it is the poster (or speaker) him/herself that yields ownership rights. On this forum we distinguish between someone presenting a story, for example, as opposed to giving advice on punctuation. It is not presented as a creative work, simply as discussion.

And again, we are not talking about libel or slander, defamation or anything that would be considered injurious to a person or entity. All that is in view is discussion. 

If journalists had to get permission for everything they wanted to quote, how would they break stories? lol

- - - Updated - - -

I would just add that as long as social forums have been around, it seems we would have enough information to make a determined conclusion, but so far I am not finding anything that would clarify this.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 13, 2014)

Interestingly enough, I found a law Forum where not only is a similar question asked, but by someone who was quoted from one forum to another. Only two responses, both saying it wasn't against the law to hurt someone's feelings, and that there was no legal recourse.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 13, 2014)

Permission is always the best thing to get when using someone else's words.

In lieu of permission, you should, at the very least, attribute the source. (*Garza* can probably tell us more about citing sources, as he's been a lifelong working journalist.)

If you use someone else's words with neither their permission, nor attributions, then you're just plagiarizing for your own benefit.

Plagiarism, according to Wiki (see how I linked and attributed the source there?), is _the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions"_.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 13, 2014)

I have been asking about this on the lawyer forum, and to be honest, it seems a bit contradictory. It is unfortunate that often this is how it goes in certain discussions and debates, and unless there is an authority that can be appealed to for a decisive determination, which in this case, would be the Law itself, then the issue falls into a category where opinion is all that is offered.

I hope to be able to get a conclusive answer and I would think this legal forum would be the place, where someone might be able to produce actual law that would govern the issue. So far it seems that many people "feel" they have a right but so far no-one has produced Law that makes it concrete.

It almost looks like the answers are governed more by whim than actual fact. I say this because in reviewing the threads on this issue, two primary answers have been supplied, the first basically being "quit sniveling and get tougher skin" and the other personal comments of ownership and right. 

I'll let you know, for those that might be interested, what I find out.

- - - Updated - - -



Kyle R said:


> Permission is always the best thing to get when using someone else's words.
> 
> In lieu of permission, you should, at the very least, attribute the source. (*Garza* can probably tell us more about citing sources, as he's been a lifelong working journalist.)
> 
> ...



I would point out the rest of the story, lol:


*Plagiarism* is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" *and the representation of them as one's own **original work.[SUP][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism"][1][/URL][/SUP][SUP][[/SUP]*


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 13, 2014)

And that has been brought up: we are not talking about stealing someone else's creative works, simply quoting discussion and debates, where full attributing, howbeit to an anonymous poster to begin with, is always maintained, to where theft is not a legitimate issue. 

Now where people use their real names brings up an issue where, though I don't think it changes the scope of the inquiry, is still something that needs to be addressed: I have always cautioned people to always maintain anonymity when engaging in social media, because let's face it...there are a lot of nuts out there, and we don't want to end up as a guest on a true crime documentary. This is not necessary for those that are public figures, but just as most writers do not give out their personal addresses, even so it is best to maintain anonymity and not give out details which might allow someone to figure out where you are. This is particularly true in political and theological debate, where we are dealing with possibly the two most volatile subjects available to us.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 13, 2014)

Some good reading material here on the subject (the topic of internet posts is discussed, too): http://www.teachingvillage.org/2012...arism-and-digital-literacy-by-sue-lyon-jones/ :encouragement:

Insightful snippet from the above link:



> *Tips for good practice when re-using other people’s work:*
> 
> Always check that you have permission to use work that others have created, and ask for permission _before_ you use it
> Remember to credit your sources
> ...


----------



## InstituteMan (Dec 13, 2014)

Quoting someone while accrediting the source for purposes of debate or discussion is usually going to be counted as a "Fair Use" under copyright law. The exact parameters of the Fair Use doctrine can be a little hard to pin down, as it is a case-by-case determination. If in doubt, it's a good idea to hire an attorney.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 14, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> Quoting someone while accrediting the source for purposes of debate or discussion is usually going to be counted as a "Fair Use" under copyright law. The exact parameters of the Fair Use doctrine can be a little hard to pin down, as it is a case-by-case determination. If in doubt, it's a good idea to hire an attorney.



So far, including a trip to a lawyers forum, lol, the general consensus I have been able to determine is that basically, most forums themselves receive a licensing for the material published on a forum. In other words, that forum has the right, unless otherwise listed in it's Terms of Service, to do with as they please everything posted there. Now while adding to what someone says would not be permissible, likely, deleting from what they said is just normal procedure. But, where I think fair use would be more relevant is in the material itself. For example, here it is understood that when someone posts a song, story, or poem, et cetera, no-one here fails to recognize that as a creative work in a category which stands separately from, for example, a response to a question. I did find one thing on copyright.gov that lists texts and emails as copyrightable, but that doesn't clarify whether this would, in a court of law, be viewed in the same light as we would normally consider material subject to either copyright or copyright protection. 

The reverse seems to be true in reality, where for example a journalist (can't remember who it was) stated something negative about the President's daughters. There was an outcry about her comments which did not result in a protest about her rights, but an apology. 

It was actually a little humorous, in that one of the people saying they retained rights to everything they said actually revealed the true identity of a member who was currently in an ongoing court case, though this man joined under a pseudonym. He not only quoted from two different forums for the purpose of ridiculing the man, but threatened to contact the legal counsel of the man's opponents!

And then tried to argue he had sole rights, despite the TOS of the forum which is given fully sub-licensable license to everything any member posts there.

Very curious, in my mind.

It would seem, like one or two of you mentioned already, that monetary gain would be a likely motive for pursuing this kind of thing. If the quotes were injurious in some way (i.e.. libel, slander, charge of contagious disease, or something that caused loss of income), that too might earn a trip to the courtroom, but fair use seems to be pretty straightforward and calculates intent of use in areas such as criticism and education, for example. 

And to be honest, I think I am done with the subject. I plan on requesting written permission from anyone that wants to participate as an antagonist and be included in the project, for which I will likely set up a post office box. That seems the best way to avoid repercussions which can easily be avoided by gaining permission.

And I know what some of you are thinking..."That's what we told you before," lol. This is true, but I would still think there would be, as long as social media has been around, something a little more concrete on the books. If there is, I haven't found it, and at this point not too worried about it. I prefer having something tangible to support a position, and in regards to this, it seems that opinion has more say than actual law does.

- - - Updated - - -

I would just ask one more question, InstituteMan: could you put in layman's terms what sub-licensing would mean to a forum?


----------



## InstituteMan (Dec 14, 2014)

I can't begin to speculate as to what any particular form would think a "sub-license" is, because there's a lot of loopy ideas about these things out there. 

I can tell you that at the base of it any license is just an agreement not to sue for infringement, often subject to some negotiated terms. For example, I could license Major Publishing Corp to print/distribute/sell my novel so long as they pay me a specified royalty. Sometimes a license includes a right to sub-license the rights granted in the license. For example, I could agree that Major Publishing Corp can sub-license my copyright in the novel to an e-book publisher so long as I get paid a percentage of what the e-book publisher pays Major Publishing Corp.

In some cases, a license can be implied. Whether implied or not, a license may also be limited in scope. For example, if I post here knowing there's a "quote" button for every member to use, I probably have granted you and everyone here an implied license to reproduce my words in this thread, but the scope of the implied license probably doesn't extend further than that--no one can copy my words here into a book without my permission (aka, another, different license). 

A license may be exclusive (essentially meaning there's an agreement that no one else can exercise those rights) or non-exclusive (meaning the copyright holder can license others).

The licensing and sale of rights under copyright are easy to screw up. This is an area where hiring an attorney with experience in the field is a great idea, and usually a major money saver in the end.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 15, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> I can't begin to speculate as to what any particular form would think a "sub-license" is, because there's a lot of loopy ideas about these things out there.
> 
> I can tell you that at the base of it any license is just an agreement not to sue for infringement, often subject to some negotiated terms. For example, I could license Major Publishing Corp to print/distribute/sell my novel so long as they pay me a specified royalty. Sometimes a license includes a right to sub-license the rights granted in the license. For example, I could agree that Major Publishing Corp can sub-license my copyright in the novel to an e-book publisher so long as I get paid a percentage of what the e-book publisher pays Major Publishing Corp.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that I.M.

Take a look at this TOS statement:

By posting content or making content available for inclusion on the ExpertLaw forums, including without limitation threads and comments you post to the forum, you grant ExpertLaw and its proprietors a world-wide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free, non-exclusive, fully sub-licensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display, and to incorporate such content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.


Now I would consider that to say that the forum has the right to reproduce what is posted, though I would say within the confines of copyright law. What I mean is that it seems to me there would be a distinction made between a creative work in the typical sense and simple dialogue. So am I wrong in thinking if the owner's used what could not, and probably would not be viewed as infringing on copyright law in it's primary sense, such as dialogue or debate, does agreeing to the above by joining protect the forum owners using that dialogue or debate? Again, that doesn't mean they could, with what this forum does as an example, use creative works in a book, I think copyright law would cover that. The above statement seems to be pretty specific in granting use. And, that forum is quite different in content from this one, so again it would be apples to oranges.

Another question is if I started a debate forum and had in the TOS (terms of service) that everything posted (apart from that already under copyright protection such as works presented there) there becomes something under our right to use or reproduce, would having that in the TOS make it binding, or if someone found themselves in a book could they take action despite having agreed to it by joining?


----------



## InstituteMan (Dec 15, 2014)

In all honesty, ST, giving specific interpretations of contracts, terms of service, and other legal issues on internet forums is the sort of thing that gets attorneys into plenty of troubles, so I am going to have to politely decline out of a desire to keep my own licenses intact.

A related word of warning: while I have no idea what the quality of discussion is on any law themed internet forum, I can tell you that no reputable attorney I know goes to such places for help and guidance. My guess--and this is only a guess--is that many legal discussions online, at least in the publicly accessible part of the internet, will skew toward the more reactionary and esoteric legal theories. Every so often those theories ultimately become the "black letter law," but most of the time those theories are rejected out of had by courts. A book from the local library will usually give a better summary of legal principles, and an attorney will usually cost less than people expect when the issue to address is specific and small.


----------



## S.T. Ranger (Dec 15, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> In all honesty, ST, giving specific interpretations of contracts, terms of service, and other legal issues on internet forums is the sort of thing that gets attorneys into plenty of troubles, so I am going to have to politely decline out of a desire to keep my own licenses intact.
> 
> A related word of warning: while I have no idea what the quality of discussion is on any law themed internet forum, I can tell you that no reputable attorney I know goes to such places for help and guidance. My guess--and this is only a guess--is that many legal discussions online, at least in the publicly accessible part of the internet, will skew toward the more reactionary and esoteric legal theories. Every so often those theories ultimately become the "black letter law," but most of the time those theories are rejected out of had by courts. A book from the local library will usually give a better summary of legal principles, and an attorney will usually cost less than people expect when the issue to address is specific and small.



And I think your response is very appropriate, IM. I would just add that it probably boils down to some common-sense principles, which, if applied, will help keep us out of trouble. I have been contacted by Strong's Online Concordance in response to my request for permission to use them in the book, and they have said no permission necessary as it is in the public Domain, and they just asked to be duly noted (which I intend to do, because I see them as the best resource a Bible Student can possibly have). That kind of response is awesome. But, I do have an email on file now from a head of that organization granting express permission, public domain aside, which should head off any future consequence or repercussion. 

I have also notified a very large forum for permission to seek antagonists on their forum, stating that written permission will be required to be mailed to me (via post office box of course), and perhaps, if they are agreeable, they can expand on what would be necessary to accomplish something like that. 

So the common sense would be err on the side of caution, and have express permission which makes anything questionable disappear. And while, when it comes to law, sometimes there can be gray areas people try to exploit, I think it best to cover my bases.


----------

