Volunteer writing

Who owns the copyright

[team]

In general, if a person writes an article that is published on a website and does not charge for it, who holds the copyright? The website owner or the author, or both?

The article may be written at the request of the site owner or, more often than not, the author simply volunteers. There are no written agreements involved; no discussion of rights, etc.

Another question:

If the website owner is asked by a third party to reprint an article that was written and submitted on a voluntary basis, does the site owner need to ask the author before granting such permission?

We're not talking about a large corporate website or well-known authors. Everything is very informal.

[Leosghost]

On the other hand, in my opinion, your comments sound borderline libelous. ;)

I spent a great deal of time to avoid that possibility prior to posting them ..as your or another readers interpretation of my comments as such was not my intention ..

Furthermore I never stated I would not remove illegaly misappropriated material. By its nature, the individual posting the stolen material entered into the contract illegaly, therefore it could never be enforced. I thought that was obvious, so I didn't spell it out.

What I was actually referring to having to be removed was material that was not "stolen" ..your reaction to that possibility you had been clearly stated earlier in the thread ..but also material actually owned by the poster who may disagree with your interpretataion of your TOS as being legally binding ..and may later ask you to remove their post ..

A strong TOS goes two ways.

agreed ..but I can't see what you are offering to any poster in return for you ( if your definition is correct ) gaining the "exclusive publishing rights" ..they gain what ..? the right to see their own words ..

When you or I publish here at WebmasterWorld the copyright remains our own and Brett doesn't try to insist via TOS here that we cannot post the same text elsewhere ( One because I don't think he thinks that way ..and two 'cos it would n't be feasable )..

The adsense point was mine ...) as I thought maybe that was you business model ( we agree ..it "adsense on fora " works ).. I can see if you were following this model how you would wish to avoid the possibility of duplicates of posts appearing elsewhere and affecting your positioning ..If that is your reason then I can see why you would maybe wish to word your TOS thusly ..I just don't think you can make it "fly"..

What is responsible for my attempting to draw you on this point is the phrase

potentially fetch good money

..if it were just as copy to attract adsense then the mere publishing of them would indeed bring potentially good traffic and thus indirectly if the adsense worked make you good money ..

But the posts in themselves could not do this

fetch good money

..for you ..unless either you were intending to sell them on ..or sell the pages of your site upon which they rested onwards ..

or am I missing something ..?

I can't misunderstand that which isn't explained

Perhaps you see their monetary value to you in another scenario?.

If you will ..I can't see why you feel you need this

All posts retain the original author's copyright, but by submitting such post, the author grants a non-revocable, exclusive publishing right in perpetuity to example.com, and it's owners.

And in the light of the lack of your posted clarification as to why you feel you need that line .. I have been speculating ..possibly erroneously ;)

Nor can I see how you could make it stick .

If she e-signed the agreement/contract would it make it invalid and non-enforcable?)

IMO and experience if the only sig they had was an e-sig ..the answer would be yes ..

BTW ..many of us when posting in reply to others here warn of the possibilty of their proposed or current actions having legal repercussions if carried through ..Whilst few of us here are lawyers ..many do possess recognised experteese in non specifically web matters ...Surely you would rather a "heads up" to yourself or another ..rather than if one was to sit back and not express a concern ..and maybe save someone from a costly error on their part ;)

[BigDave]

What you almost certainly are not going to get away with is trying to claim any sort of *exclusive* right without having something in writing, and you absolutely cannot claim copyright without that writing.

Please review my post. My agreement does not transfer Copyright, nor ever claims to have it. If it suggests it to you, then my apologies.

And you might want to read the part of the sentence you quoted before the comma.

Your TOS does include the word "exclusive" and that is where you are likely to get in trouble. You are stepping into the realm of claiming ownership of the copyright, even if you are not making that specific claim. Since there are no time limits, and you are the only one that has any distribution rights under this deal, you have effecively taken over the copyright in every way.

You may not specifically be claiming copyright, but by trying to claim that exclusive right you might suddenly find the court asking you some very uncomfortable questions.

[Beagle]

I don't have any inside information on this regarding dear HP, but just from a general knowledge of book publishing contracts, I doubt very much that J.K. Rowling granted "a non-revocable, exclusive publishing right in perpetuity" to anyone, as your TOS requires authors to do. AFAIK, there's always an indication of when or under what circumstances the agreement is to end. The contract would also be limited in other ways -- I doubt if it was her publisher who had to give permission for the movies to be made. (I could go into some detail about how this all works out with material written by Tolkien, but I don't want to bore everyone! Let's just say that if anyone gets sued on copyright matters, it's not Houghton-Mifflin that sues them.)

I'd agree that, even though you don't use the word "copyright," that's what you're taking. If I'm misunderstanding that, what rights would the author have left? Wouldn't it be more honest to just have the author sign over the copyright to you? Or is that where we get into that signature problem?

---BTW, I'm wondering what "electronic signature" means in the context of this thread: the electronic reproduction of the signer's actual signature, that only the signer has access to, or simply someone's name at the bottom of an email that comes from their address? I don't have anything to say on the subject one way or another; I've just found it to be an interesting discussion and want to be sure I'm understanding terms the way they're meant.

[Leosghost]

Beagle
At the risk of putting words into the keyboard of Tapolyai ..I take him / her to mean

simply someone's name at the bottom of an email that comes from their address

..
Which is the reason for one of my concerns ..

Even if he /she means the following

that only the signer has access to,

Unless their machine can be activated only by 100% foolproof biometric identification and "you" can be given notarized or similar proof that the email exists in their out box and or they were seen to type it or whatever ..
I cant see how "exclusive access" can be proven ..and so any emails one may receive .or "assents" ( tick boxes or whatever form ) via click - wrap or whatever from their ( obviously imperatively )fixed IP could be disregarded as authentic for the same reason .

My other concern is obviously that of someone whose primary activity is the creation of original artistic works ..and I certainly get very nervous and questioning at the thought of anyone thinking that they could use a TOS such as the

All posts retain the original author's copyright, but by submitting such post, the author grants a non-revocable, exclusive publishing right in perpetuity to example.com, and it's owners

to then "publish" at will.. my text or pictures or whatever could be included within a "post".

And for them also to assume that they had also gained the right to bar me from publishing myself or entering into agreements with others to have the works published elsewhere ..

Wether or not they thought that the works had potential value and might "fetch good money" ..