RMweb Gold Oldddudders Posted July 10, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 10, 2015 ISTR some famous Greek - apparently unconcerned with the debt crisis - suggested that if one immersed one's mits in water, and then removed them, the resulting hole in the water represented one's true importance. The same applies to almost everything we post here. Deal with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 11, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 11, 2015 ISTR some famous Greek - apparently unconcerned with the debt crisis - suggested that if one immersed one's mits in water, and then removed them, the resulting hole in the water represented one's true importance. The same applies to almost everything we post here. Deal with it. Spot on! Now I write as one who has recently had an entire RMweb post reproduced in BRM - not a quote but an entire post. I was consulted about the photos which accompany it in its BRM incarnation (but I don't recall seeing the one with a tiny typographical error - not that it worries me one jot). I was asked if the post could be used and I agreed and I think it makes quite a nice little feature (but I am of course incredibly biased in that respect ). So what's the problem? If someone quotes a sentence or part thereof from one of my posts in a review or comment about a layout (both highly unlikely but you never know) so what - my words are in the public domain because they are here, on the internet where umpteen thousand people can read them. If I didn't want them read they wouldn't be here but if they are going to be used as a quote it would be a bit more than nice, i.e. polite. to be asked first - but I can hardly object because the words are already in the public domain. All extremely simples and no need whatsoever in my view to create a hurricane in a teacup. BTW if you don't like it here there is of course a very simple answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 Spot on! Now I write as one who has recently had an entire RMweb post reproduced in BRM - not a quote but an entire post. I was consulted about the photos which accompany it in its BRM incarnation (but I don't recall seeing the one with a tiny typographical error - not that it worries me one jot). I was asked if the post could be used and I agreed and I think it makes quite a nice little feature (but I am of course incredibly biased in that respect ). So what's the problem? No problem at all. You've given permission for your words and pictures to be used and that's absolutely your right as their author If someone quotes a sentence or part thereof from one of my posts in a review or comment about a layout (both highly unlikely but you never know) so what - my words are in the public domain because they are here, on the internet where umpteen thousand people can read them. If I didn't want them read they wouldn't be here but if they are going to be used as a quote it would be a bit more than nice, i.e. polite. to be asked first - but I can hardly object because the words are already in the public domain. All extremely simples and no need whatsoever in my view to create a hurricane in a teacup. BTW if you don't like it here there is of course a very simple answer. Even without permission the quoting of a sentence or two is probably now OK at least in Britain but for someone to use a substantial chunk of anything you've written it's not just nice to ask your permission it's also necessary. I'm not going into what rights to use posts here BRM might have or not have but in general you can't use a substantial chunk of anyone's work without asking them first There does seem to be a misunderstanding of the difference between "public" and "public domain". If you write something on an openly available forum like this one or even in a magazine then you've clearly made it public and want people to read it. You do though still own what you've written. Public Domain is very different as it means that there is no copyright in a work, usually because the author is long deceased but there can be other reasons. Shakespeare is a classic example, you don't need anyone's permission to put on a performance of one of his original plays but that would not be true of a modern adaptation. You may decide that you don't care what use anyone makes of anything you've written and for casual writing that's probably true for most of us much of the time but nobody else can decide that for you. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold JohnR Posted July 14, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 14, 2015 Spot on! Now I write as one who has recently had an entire RMweb post reproduced in BRM - not a quote but an entire post. I was consulted about the photos which accompany it in its BRM incarnation (but I don't recall seeing the one with a tiny typographical error - not that it worries me one jot). I was asked if the post could be used and I agreed and I think it makes quite a nice little feature (but I am of course incredibly biased in that respect ). So what's the problem? If someone quotes a sentence or part thereof from one of my posts in a review or comment about a layout (both highly unlikely but you never know) so what - my words are in the public domain because they are here, on the internet where umpteen thousand people can read them. If I didn't want them read they wouldn't be here but if they are going to be used as a quote it would be a bit more than nice, i.e. polite. to be asked first - but I can hardly object because the words are already in the public domain. All extremely simples and no need whatsoever in my view to create a hurricane in a teacup. BTW if you don't like it here there is of course a very simple answer. No problem at all. But you were asked before publication. I'd like to think that if you said "No, I'm not happy with what I wrote" they would have respected that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted July 14, 2015 RMweb Gold Share Posted July 14, 2015 No problem at all. But you were asked before publication. I'd like to think that if you said "No, I'm not happy with what I wrote" they would have respected that. I'm absolutely certain that they would have. But quite honestly why should I? I have had stuff (letters, articles, and chapters in 'coffee table books') published in magazines etc for 30 years - albeit with a gap in more recent times - so I'm not really likely to object. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenser Posted July 14, 2015 Share Posted July 14, 2015 This amounts to quotation of something that's been publicly published. It's in much the same category as those bits on the BBC website or certain news programmes where they give a round-up of "what the papers say". I'm not aware that News International has ever tried to sue the BBC for reading out quotes from the front page or editorial columns of the Times or the Sun on grounds of breach of copyright. One candidate for a party leadership has hinted he doesn't want to give interviews to a particular paper - but even he would hardly be able to sue that paper for breach of copyright if they printed the words of a speech he had given. The days of suing newspapers for reporting speeches in Parliament ended in the second half of the 18th century There is and has always been some right of limited quotation/citation under copyright law Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.