Who should own a post?

should the poster or the forum own the posts

[chadmg]

I've read in another thread that it's wise to add to your TOS that posts are owned by the forum. That way you have the right to keep them if a poster wants their messages deleted. But if someone takes legal action against the forum for a post, is that content then the responsibility of the forum and therefore liable?

This site states that member comments are owned by the poster. And this also makes sense, to be legally not responsible for user comments. But if the member owns the post, does he have the right to delete it or use that content as their own?

Which do you think is the most beneficial stance? Or is there some combination of the two?

By the way, thank you for starting this new section. And rogerd you're doing an excellent job of starting up some interesting threads, a lesson in itself. If only all forums could have such great moderators as WebmasterWorld.

[rogerd]

Chadmg, TOS wording may depend on your intentions and concerns. One site I work with might publish extracts from its forum in other media, or elsewhere on its site, so claiming full ownership seemed to make sense for them. Most sites may not care about that potential, and simply claiming a license to use the poster's content may be sufficient.

The holder of a copyright can't demand removal of posts at a later time if the site is licensed to publish them under its TOS.

As far as how post copyright ownership affects liability in the event of a lawsuit, I'd recommend checking with your local I.P. attorney. If you are the site owner and someone slandered/libeled on your site is angry enough to sue, my guess is that you'll be named as a party no matter what your TOS says. But, I'm not a lawyer. :)

Thanks for the kind words, too - I'm glad to see there's been so much interest in the topics we've discussed here.

[roscoepico]

On the bottom of every page here @ WebmasterWorld, there is a little blurb stating:

Member comments are owned by the poster.

[rogerd]

Right, roscoepico, and the TOS specifies that the poster licenses the content to WebmasterWorld.

Per the charter of this forum, though, let's get away from WebmasterWorld specifics & policies and focus on the general issue of post ownership.

[chadmg]

Thanks rogerd. I'd just like to stay far away from any litigation, so any advice on the matter helps.

Stating that member comments are owned by the poster but are licensed to the forum is a great solution.

You mentioned that the charter states that webmasterworld specifics shouldn't be discussed in this forum. However, since WebmasterWorld is a leader in forum community building, doesn't it serve as a great example? And shouldn't it be discussed as a sort of model for other successful forums? It's also an example that we are familiar with, and since we shouldn't link to other forums as examples, is it unreasonable to use WebmasterWorld specifics? or does tabke forbid it?

[rogerd]

Actually, WebmasterWorld is a fantastic example of community building, and referencing a specific example of something that works is no problem. What we want to avoid are discussions that get into commentary and debate on specific policies & practices - those kinds of discussions belong in the WebmasterWorld Community Forum or in some cases (like moderation issues) in sticky mail or e-mail.

I'd say the copyright ownership policy here seems to work well, but as noted above, there's not a perfect protection.

Another good idea is to anticipate that someone will post something that belongs to someone else and having easy-to-find DMCA notification instructions. Someone can still sue first and ask questions later, but a reasonable person would probably contact you.

[klickman]

What an excellent question. I tell to be honest I am in the processing of developing a forum for my site and everytime I come to this particualr forum it just takes my thinking to a new level.

I never gaven much thought to this question as to "Who should own a post?" Especially in the initial stages. In fact (as always) I would first reserve the right to change the TOS of the forum at any date. Secondly, when issues like these that come up and were not a part of the equation in the first place then I would exercise that right to change the TOS and then broadcast that to the forum members.

What would be enlightening and helpful of course if a memmber of WW who is an I.P Attorney could expound on this issue and shade some light for us. I am hoping to attract such people in our forum who are experts or atleast knowledgeable in various areas of Internet Business.

At this point unless I wanted to own a copyright of some publications or written documents which were posted by members on my forum I would steer clear of issues which may cause my company to be involved in lawsuits.

I belive the issue regarding slander has been addressed and Forum Masters and their moderators need to monitor post that are of this nature and put out the fire(s) before they happen.

If there is a post that you want to make reference to from your forum I am sure that you can always refer to that post by linkage. What would be the lost or harm? Seeing that the link reference is to your own forum in the first place?

That's my opinion. If I am missing the larger picture, someone please be kind and point it out to me.

Thanks,
KM

[lorax]

I'm on the side of the posts being owned by the poster with the caveat that the my company has full rights to compile and republish edited versions of the posts as we wish.

[paybacksa]

I was under the impression that in the US a forum should be maintained as a "public square" so that the rights of free speech apply. That means people can say what hey want and the board is treated only as a service provider, not responsible for content.

If you claimownership, don't you take responsibility?

I would think (I am not qualified to say really) that the TOS should say the board is licensed to use all posts, re-use, for whatever purpose, posting implies consent, etc.. but that they belong to the poster, and the board has no responsibility.

I, too, would think someone with experience in this would contribute here (?)

[rogerd]

I'll steer clear of the liability issue, but from the publishing standpoint a license isn't the same as ownership. The member could copy all of his posts, compile them in a book, and compete with YOUR book.

If you own the posts, direct copying isn't an option for the writer.

This is all pretty abstract, since the value of 99.99% of forum posts is ephemeral and it's quite rare to find posts that anyone would think about publishing. I suppose an "exclusive" license would be a reasonable substitute for ownership, but whether that would affect liability issues I couldn't say.

[gmiller]

I'm dredging up a fairly old thread here, but I thought I'd point out that, last time I checked, you needed a signature on a piece of paper in order to transfer copyright.

So the licensing solution would seem to be the way to go. If you want to prevent them from copying the same post elsewhere, require a perpetual, exclusive license.