Your're probably right in that the contract you're agreeing to with MAD is not enforceable. There really isn't any consideration given for the assignment of the copyright either.
But I'm not a lawyer. I just play one on the internet.
Tienanmen Square at MAD
-
_Nightingale
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 323
- Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:31 am
I was just going to post that portion of your response on MADB, skippy, so that CKid could see it. I'm not sure when he can participate on that board again - is it Monday?
This is what skippy said there:
NG had posted this:
MADB Guidelines re copyright (from the board):
By posting on Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board you agree to the terms and conditions of this service, and assign the copyright and use right in the material posted to MA&D. Materials posted on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of MA&D and the materials' posters.
His reply:
Just jumping in here; I'd like to weigh in on two issues.
First: as for the signature issue - a general tenet of contract law is that a facsimile signature can be sufficient if the parties so agree. I've closed many a deal using faxed signatures. But more significantly, someone who is authorized to act on behalf of MA&D needs to sign any agreement - MA&D is taking on certain obligations and responsibilities under the various draft agreements I've looked at under this thread, and in order to produce a valid agreement, I would submit that MA&D needs to likewise execute the agreement.
Second: Folks seem to be accepting that by posting here, a poster is assigning his or her copyright to the posts to MA&D. I don't think that this is necessarily a given - I would really like to see an intellectual property attorney comment on it. However, it would seem that ownership of a copyright can only be assigned via a signed instrument, and not by what is essentially a "click-through" agreement. There may be an implied license granted via participation, but I'm not so sure about assignment of a copyright. For instance, see 17 U.S.C. Section 204:
QUOTE
§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.
( b ) A certificate of acknowledgment is not required for the validity of a transfer, but is prima facie evidence of the execution of the transfer if —
(1) in the case of a transfer executed in the United States, the certificate is issued by a person authorized to administer oaths within the United States; or
(2) in the case of a transfer executed in a foreign country, the certificate is issued by a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or by a person authorized to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of such an officer.
_________________________
Very informative, skippy. Thanks.
The point someone above made about "consideration" is also of great interest. Going way back to Law12 in high school, I recall that for a contract to be valid some "consideration" must be given; i.e., money.
In response to harmony, I'd like to say, first of all: EEK. I didn't know that this copyright issue had been debated before. I guess I wasn't reading Shades then and I missed it. I just brought it up when someone on Celestial Kingdom's thread over there said it's all really simple. It raised a red flag for me in that it seemed people might jump into something that would turn out to be more complex than they thought.
I would say that it's true that participants there would seem to be accepting the conditions of posting, one of which is that MADB owns copyright on all posts. Whether that is legally enforceable or not is debatable. However, the author has the choice to just not participate if it bothers them that much.
But Celestial Kingdom's proposal to take some posted material, edit it into a different format for a separate publication raises the copyright issue loud and clear. My (limited and inexpert) understanding is that MADB may "own copyright" to the body of posts; as in, perhaps you can't re-post entire threads from there to another location without violating their "ownership" but it is not certain that they own true copyright of every individual post that appears on their board such that they could re-use the material in a different format and location. However, they aren't trying to do that - it's Celestial Kingdom's proposal. I was just trying to point out that there could be more complications than it may seem at first. It could well be fine for regular posters, especially LDS perhaps, who are happy to be included in the e-pub. But for outside authors (and that is one of the objectives of this exercise, apparently - to attract more participants) they may either decline to participate at all because of the copyright issue or there may end up being a disagreement later on because of it.
I hope they can work it out. I think it's a good idea and with a little research and clarification could likely be resolved. As I said over there, maybe it's better to look at it as an author granting a use right rather than a copyright. All Celestial Kingdom can do is make his proposal and see if MADB will accept it. But it's better to ensure you're in line with legal precedent than come to grief down the road, in my view.
This is what skippy said there:
NG had posted this:
MADB Guidelines re copyright (from the board):
By posting on Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board you agree to the terms and conditions of this service, and assign the copyright and use right in the material posted to MA&D. Materials posted on the Mormon Apologetics and Discussion Board may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of MA&D and the materials' posters.
His reply:
Just jumping in here; I'd like to weigh in on two issues.
First: as for the signature issue - a general tenet of contract law is that a facsimile signature can be sufficient if the parties so agree. I've closed many a deal using faxed signatures. But more significantly, someone who is authorized to act on behalf of MA&D needs to sign any agreement - MA&D is taking on certain obligations and responsibilities under the various draft agreements I've looked at under this thread, and in order to produce a valid agreement, I would submit that MA&D needs to likewise execute the agreement.
Second: Folks seem to be accepting that by posting here, a poster is assigning his or her copyright to the posts to MA&D. I don't think that this is necessarily a given - I would really like to see an intellectual property attorney comment on it. However, it would seem that ownership of a copyright can only be assigned via a signed instrument, and not by what is essentially a "click-through" agreement. There may be an implied license granted via participation, but I'm not so sure about assignment of a copyright. For instance, see 17 U.S.C. Section 204:
QUOTE
§ 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.
( b ) A certificate of acknowledgment is not required for the validity of a transfer, but is prima facie evidence of the execution of the transfer if —
(1) in the case of a transfer executed in the United States, the certificate is issued by a person authorized to administer oaths within the United States; or
(2) in the case of a transfer executed in a foreign country, the certificate is issued by a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States, or by a person authorized to administer oaths whose authority is proved by a certificate of such an officer.
_________________________
Very informative, skippy. Thanks.
The point someone above made about "consideration" is also of great interest. Going way back to Law12 in high school, I recall that for a contract to be valid some "consideration" must be given; i.e., money.
In response to harmony, I'd like to say, first of all: EEK. I didn't know that this copyright issue had been debated before. I guess I wasn't reading Shades then and I missed it. I just brought it up when someone on Celestial Kingdom's thread over there said it's all really simple. It raised a red flag for me in that it seemed people might jump into something that would turn out to be more complex than they thought.
I would say that it's true that participants there would seem to be accepting the conditions of posting, one of which is that MADB owns copyright on all posts. Whether that is legally enforceable or not is debatable. However, the author has the choice to just not participate if it bothers them that much.
But Celestial Kingdom's proposal to take some posted material, edit it into a different format for a separate publication raises the copyright issue loud and clear. My (limited and inexpert) understanding is that MADB may "own copyright" to the body of posts; as in, perhaps you can't re-post entire threads from there to another location without violating their "ownership" but it is not certain that they own true copyright of every individual post that appears on their board such that they could re-use the material in a different format and location. However, they aren't trying to do that - it's Celestial Kingdom's proposal. I was just trying to point out that there could be more complications than it may seem at first. It could well be fine for regular posters, especially LDS perhaps, who are happy to be included in the e-pub. But for outside authors (and that is one of the objectives of this exercise, apparently - to attract more participants) they may either decline to participate at all because of the copyright issue or there may end up being a disagreement later on because of it.
I hope they can work it out. I think it's a good idea and with a little research and clarification could likely be resolved. As I said over there, maybe it's better to look at it as an author granting a use right rather than a copyright. All Celestial Kingdom can do is make his proposal and see if MADB will accept it. But it's better to ensure you're in line with legal precedent than come to grief down the road, in my view.
-
_Notoriuswun
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:44 am
-
_CaliforniaKid
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4247
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 8:47 am
Thanks, Skippy and NG. I had assumed that MAD's copyright assignment rule was valid, at least as much so as an End-User License Agreement (like the one you agree to when you install Windows). But based on Skippy's post above, I'd say it isn't. They should probably change it then. According to my research, it's illegal to claim a copyright on material that isn't rightfully yours.
If an outside scholar wants to participate, I guess we could PM his/her article out to people who want to participate in reviewing it (rather like what was done with Micahel Heiser's article recently), rather than posting it on the board. That might alleviate his/her copyright concerns. Even if MADB's claim to copyright on forum posts isn't valid, the joint copyright agreement would still work. I'd rather have people just give MADB a license to use the material, but it sounds like the admins wouldn't be happy with that solution; they want an ownership interest. There's not much practical difference either way (at least given the way I wrote the joint ownership agreement), except that joint ownership gives MADB the right to go after third-party violators.
-CK
If an outside scholar wants to participate, I guess we could PM his/her article out to people who want to participate in reviewing it (rather like what was done with Micahel Heiser's article recently), rather than posting it on the board. That might alleviate his/her copyright concerns. Even if MADB's claim to copyright on forum posts isn't valid, the joint copyright agreement would still work. I'd rather have people just give MADB a license to use the material, but it sounds like the admins wouldn't be happy with that solution; they want an ownership interest. There's not much practical difference either way (at least given the way I wrote the joint ownership agreement), except that joint ownership gives MADB the right to go after third-party violators.
-CK
-
_skippy the dead
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1676
- Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:39 am
Nightingale wrote:
The point someone above made about "consideration" is also of great interest. Going way back to Law12 in high school, I recall that for a contract to be valid some "consideration" must be given; i.e., money.
Yeah - this could be an issue. But in many cases, you can have something in there that says something like: "In consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and conditions contained herein, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows."
Nightingale wrote:
In response to harmony, I'd like to say, first of all: EEK. I didn't know that this copyright issue had been debated before. I guess I wasn't reading Shades then and I missed it. I just brought it up when someone on Celestial Kingdom's thread over there said it's all really simple. It raised a red flag for me in that it seemed people might jump into something that would turn out to be more complex than they thought.
I would say that it's true that participants there would seem to be accepting the conditions of posting, one of which is that MADB owns copyright on all posts. Whether that is legally enforceable or not is debatable. However, the author has the choice to just not participate if it bothers them that much.
But Celestial Kingdom's proposal to take some posted material, edit it into a different format for a separate publication raises the copyright issue loud and clear. My (limited and inexpert) understanding is that MADB may "own copyright" to the body of posts; as in, perhaps you can't re-post entire threads from there to another location without violating their "ownership" but it is not certain that they own true copyright of every individual post that appears on their board such that they could re-use the material in a different format and location. However, they aren't trying to do that - it's Celestial Kingdom's proposal. I was just trying to point out that there could be more complications than it may seem at first. It could well be fine for regular posters, especially LDS perhaps, who are happy to be included in the e-pub. But for outside authors (and that is one of the objectives of this exercise, apparently - to attract more participants) they may either decline to participate at all because of the copyright issue or there may end up being a disagreement later on because of it.
Since I'm still leaning against the assignment of copyright ownership to MAD, I think that re-use raises some unpleasant issues. If there is an implied license for use, it would still likely only be for the instant use of displaying the posts in the forum. If MAD were to try to re-purpose the postings, then they'd also likely be running afoul of the implied license.
My understanding of Celestial Kingdom's original purpose (if I remember correctly) is that a poster would actually draft something that was specifically intended for e-publication, and it would be posted for the purpose of getting "reviewed" by others on the board. If that's the case, then perhaps the implied license there could be understood to be part of the final, e-published work. Getting MAD to own the copyright, of course, is a different story.
I think that having the papers is a great idea, but to make it work, MAD may have to be satisfied with a license to the respective copyrights, instead of ownership.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
-
_Jersey Girl
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 34407
- Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am
I just read this thread tonight. They totally screwed up over there. Throughout the entire thread of origin, Juliann repeatedly noted that no mods had stepped in as if it were some sort of natural leniency taking place when infact it was a preplanned experiment. Yup, no mods on the thread until Juliann put her foot in her mouth for the zillionth time to the point of even TBM's protesting her nonsense.
It gets loonier all the time on that board.
Jersey Girl
It gets loonier all the time on that board.
Jersey Girl
I just tried to PM someone over there, and I got a message that I have to have 20 posts before I could do so. Is this a common thing with message boards?
Not really complaining, just never encountered this before.
Not really complaining, just never encountered this before.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
-
_Yoda
Gazelam wrote:I just tried to PM someone over there, and I got a message that I have to have 20 posts before I could do so. Is this a common thing with message boards?
Not really complaining, just never encountered this before.
It's a MAD rule. I'm sure that each Message Board has their own preferences when it comes to this type of thing, but most MB's I've encountered either have PM's as a hard and fast feature upon registration, or it doesn't exist at all.
-
_Notoriuswun
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 4:44 am
-
_Yoda