Posts and ownership

[Ralph Barker]

When the LFPF was first established, the issue of who owns the copyright for postings on forums was being hotly debated. Some sites claimed that the site "owned" the material posted, and essentially could do whatever they wished with it. Thus, the decision was made to attempt to clarify the matter on the LFPF, indicating that the poster owned the copyright to anything they posted, and that the poster gave the LFPF a revocable license to display it within the forum.

While we are still of the mind that we do not claim "ownership" of posts made by our members, the revocable license aspect has come back to bite us. In a couple of cases, dissatisfied parties to transactions originated out of the For Sale/Wanted sub-forum have requested that all of their posts and threads be deleted - essentially hiding the transaction problem. In truth, this doesn't accomplish much, since the forum content is picked up by search engines and external archive sites, but it is a tedious and lengthy process to delete hundreds or even thousands of posts.

As a result, we are considering changing the terms of use to making the license to maintain and display posts irrevocable. In other words, like everything else about the Internet, once you post it, it's out there forever, and the forum moderators are not obliged to remove it.

But, we would appreciate member input prior to making the change.

[Heroique]

Ralph, I think the image posters will be curious why your explanation doesn’t use the word “images” (though it seems to imply it) or indicate if the new terms would apply retroactively.

[Brian C. Miller]

Since vBulletin uses a database, wouldn't running a simple query and command to remove the posts do the job? A quick Google search turns up plenty of help on that exact problem.

[Kirk Gittings]

Another consideration is that by removing someones entire posting history we orphan entire discussions that refer to some of those removed posts. Thus rendering some of our archives incomprehensible.

[invisibleflash]

Archive it all forever and ever.

[Sal Santamaura]

...we are considering changing the terms of use to making the license to maintain and display posts irrevocable...we would appreciate member input prior to making the change.I enthusiastically support that revision. Anything to motivate responsible behavior and posting. Next, how about "real names only?" :D

[rdenney]

Most forums warn users of an irrevocable license, while the copyright ownership is still with the author.

This includes pictures.

For pictures, that are hosted elsewhere and just linked here using the IMG tags, the photographer can at any time alter the link so that it will no longer appear here. So, those who decide to host pictures here instead of externally will have a choice.

But mainly we don't want past threads to be rendered incomprehensible, and we don't want people to be able to run from accountability by demanding that we delete their posts.

Rick "trying to take the forum and its moderators out from the middle of disputed transactions" Denney

[polyglot]

I say make it irrevocable. That's how all other forums I know of work.

If you made just the for sale forum irrevocable that would take away most of the incentive that you describe, but I can imagine people having hissy fits (on a forum? never!) about arguments they got in elsewhere. You're still stuck with archives in other forums becoming unreadable but perhaps with lower probability?

Making the change at this time is difficult because you're effectively changing the terms under which previous content was granted, and people would have the right to be grumpy about that. Some other forums give you an edit/delete window after posting a message, after which the window is closed and the post is locked. Announce the new irrevocable policy as coming into effect in 3 months so that people have an opportunity go back and delete their embarrassing rants, after which posts have a limited edit/delete window of maybe 3 hours.

[Kirk Gittings]

Rick "trying to take the forum and its moderators out from the middle of disputed transactions" Denney

Amen brother.

[Tin Can]

Real names

[BrianShaw]

I have no concerns about the proposed revision.

[Leigh]

I think text and forum-hosted images should be held in perpetuity, i.e. an irrevocable license.

Google already does this, without even asking permission, and with no relationship to the posters.

Images hosted elsewhere and linked here can be removed from the host at the owner's discretion, and
in the case of Flickr at the host's discretion (why anybody uses that mess is beyond me).

Deleting relevant content at the request of the originator is simply fraud on his part.

- Leigh

[polyglot]

Real names

I disagree with this. You don't gain anything by knowing who I am (though in my case you can trivially figure it out from the links in my signature; my pseudonym is just a bit of fun leftover from when I was an undergraduate) but there are no shortage of people who legitimately obtain significant value from acting pseudonymously online, e.g. because their real name is noteworthy. And that value they obtain is not to your detriment.

Read this (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/case-pseudonyms) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymwars) and note carefully that pseudonymity is NOT the same as anonymity. Say that LFPF decides on "Real Names Only" - who the hell is going to verify that? You gonna come over here and look at my driver's license? Rick "ain't nobody got time for that shit" Denney will probably be looking for volunteers.

If you need strong identity to participate in a monetary transaction, it's up to you to authenticate the other party to your satisfaction, not the forum.

[Tin Can]

point taken

I still prefer real names. Similarly I do not discuss politics with non-voters.



I disagree with this. You don't gain anything by knowing who I am (though in my case you can trivially figure it out from the links in my signature; my pseudonym is just a bit of fun leftover from when I was an undergraduate) but there are no shortage of people who legitimately obtain significant value from acting pseudonymously online, e.g. because their real name is noteworthy. And that value they obtain is not to your detriment.

Read this (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/case-pseudonyms) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nymwars) and note carefully that pseudonymity is NOT the same as anonymity. Say that LFPF decides on "Real Names Only" - who the hell is going to verify that? You gonna come over here and look at my driver's license? Rick "ain't nobody got time for that shit" Denney will probably be looking for volunteers.

If you need strong identity to participate in a monetary transaction, it's up to you to authenticate the other party to your satisfaction, not the forum.

[welly]

Most forums warn users of an irrevocable license, while the copyright ownership is still with the author.

This includes pictures.

For pictures, that are hosted elsewhere and just linked here using the IMG tags, the photographer can at any time alter the link so that it will no longer appear here. So, those who decide to host pictures here instead of externally will have a choice.

But mainly we don't want past threads to be rendered incomprehensible, and we don't want people to be able to run from accountability by demanding that we delete their posts.

Rick "trying to take the forum and its moderators out from the middle of disputed transactions" Denney

And you don't want more extra work as moderators by having to delete snotty messages by people who shouldn't have posted them in the first place.

[Struan Gray]

I'm all for irrevocatibility. I think it makes for a better forum if people know they will have to stand by what they say.

But in reasonable cases it should be possible to remove a posting or image. There are clear cut cases where deletion is the right thing to do, even given the impossibility of completely scrubbing the internet (I'm thinking of things like Eugene Smith's Tomoko Uemura photograph). Personally, I think we can trust the moderators to be human, but if airtight rules are being written, some kind of let out or appeal mechanism would be good.

[Ralph Barker]

I'm all for irrevocatibility. I think it makes for a better forum if people know they will have to stand by what they say.

But in reasonable cases it should be possible to remove a posting or image. There are clear cut cases where deletion is the right thing to do, even given the impossibility of completely scrubbing the internet (I'm thinking of things like Eugene Smith's Tomoko Uemura photograph). Personally, I think we can trust the moderators to be human, but if airtight rules are being written, some kind of let out or appeal mechanism would be good.

Under most circumstances, we don't have a problem with requests for deletion of a single post.

[Ralph Barker]

Since vBulletin uses a database, wouldn't running a simple query and command to remove the posts do the job? A quick Google search turns up plenty of help on that exact problem.

Yes, that is possible, but the forum would need to be taken off-line, and then completely re-indexed after the operation.

[Jim Jones]

Problems can arise when using real names. Both the famous author and the infamous cult leader who shared my name are gone, but others abound on other forums.

[bob carnie]

plus one on the real names only

I enthusiastically support that revision. Anything to motivate responsible behavior and posting. Next, how about "real names only?" :D

[jnantz]

plus one on the real names only


sounds good to me

john

[marfa boomboom tx]

./edt/... In a couple of cases, dissatisfied parties to transactions originated out of the For Sale/Wanted sub-forum have requested that all of their posts and threads be deleted - essentially hiding the transaction problem. ..../edt/

But, we would appreciate member input prior to making the change.

it seems that very few have caused this action. The result of a Sale gone bad(?)
Why change the terms of the community, for now and future members, because of some small countable set? Take direct action: delete their posts, their membership, and continue with your day.

[LaurentB]

Real names (or at least screen names based on real names) and irrevocable license do it for me. I'm not a very frequent contributor (have much more to learn than to teach) but when I post I make sure I can "cmmit" to what I post.

[ROL]

I resent the implication (intended or otherwise) that the use of a "handle" indicates the desire to hide identity. When I began contributing internet forums, the use of a handle was de rigueur, sometimes required. Since everyone else was already using one, I went along to get along, despite my personal views of them. But I always made sure my actual identity (and all that that implies, not only a proper name) was quickly and easily accessed trough links to my site, for anyone who cared enough to take that simple extra step. Now my handle, or some variation thereof, is used wherever and whenever necessary throughout the net, despite the fact that I did change my YouTube channel to my name when recently offered the opportunity. If I have to begin a new account, any and all asshole comments I have made, which I stand by, that no one has read, and that nobody gives a shit about, may no longer be attributed to me :D. Wait a second, the chance to start over as a proper gentleman, with others of like temperament and accountability? Hmmmm... Could we also make it a requirement that everyone also have a sense of humor?

[rdenney]

Many of the problems we have had involve people who use their real names, and some of our most even-keeled contributors use aliases. I really don't think that the real name enforces civility as strongly as it seems to some.

But neither do I think there is any need to find resentment in the suggestion. People being prepared to live with their words is a requirement of civil discourse in any setting. In any case, that isn't under consideration, so no need to pursue it.

Rick "his real name" Denney

[rdenney]

Hmmmm... Could we also make it a requirement that everyone also have a sense of humor?

Who might we start with?

And whose standard of humor would we enforce?

Rick "who, as a mod, herewith requires everyone to laugh at his jokes" Denney

[Steve Goldstein]

I'm in favor of changing the terms of use to "irrevocable". I think it very sensible as proposed.

[Tin Can]

Good, do you have any idea how many Pro photographers have my name?

All I know is one let the domain lapse and I finally got it.

There are 20 Randy Moe's on Linkedin and al least 3 deceased. So much to do, so little time.

I will try to be funny and polite.






Many of the problems we have had involve people who use their real names, and some of our most even-keeled contributors use aliases. I really don't think that the real name enforces civility as strongly as it seems to some.

But neither do I think there is any need to find resentment in the suggestion. People being prepared to live with their words is a requirement of civil discourse in any setting. In any case, that isn't under consideration, so no need to pursue it.

Rick "his real name" Denney

[mandoman7]

When I became a member, I chose a pseudonym simply because I didn't know much about the group and it seemed wise to be cautious. I've seen criticism about this and attempted to change it but have not found the way to do it, but am willing if it can be done. Having said that, I would say that it seems more questionable to me for people to offer a lot of opinions without posting their own work or linking their website. I would make a requirement that there be at least one posted image for every five opinion posts if I were the boss...

[Ralph Barker]

When I became a member, I chose a pseudonym simply because I didn't know much about the group and it seemed wise to be cautious. I've seen criticism about this and attempted to change it but have not found the way to do it, but am willing if it can be done. Having said that, I would say that it seems more questionable to me for people to offer a lot of opinions without posting their own work or linking their website. I would make a requirement that there be at least one posted image for every five opinion posts if I were the boss...

As Rick said, pseudonyms are OK, and we have no plans to change that policy. If you want to change your user ID, just use the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of each page to reach the moderators, and we can do that for you.

[BrianShaw]

As Rick said, pseudonyms are OK, and we have no plans to change that policy. If you want to change your user ID, just use the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of each page to reach the moderators, and we can do that for you.

I'd like to start using a psuedonymn. Please change my user name to: "Rick "his real name" Denney. If that has been previously assigned, I'd like to be known as "Ralph Barker".

[LaurentB]

Who might we start with?

And whose standard of humor would we enforce?

Rick "who, as a mod, herewith requires everyone to laugh at his jokes" Denney

This seems a good starting point.

My company actaully puts "sense of humor" in the assets for new candidates, may be this should be the same here ;-)

[Ralph Barker]

I'd like to start using a psuedonymn. Please change my user name to: "Rick "his real name" Denney. If that has been previously assigned, I'd like to be known as "Ralph Barker".

Chuckle.

[Jim Galli]

Go for it! Not the non-psuedonyms though. What if Ansel Adams wants to make regular posts via John Wimberly?? What if he already is??? We wouldn't want to wreck that

jim (who's real name is Model A Overdrive) galli

[rdenney]

jim (who's real name is Model A Overdrive) galli

We were discussing names, not age.

Rick "that was a joke; you can laugh" Denney

[Dan Fromm]

We were discussing names, not age.

Rick "that was a joke; you can laugh" Denney

T'tain't funny, McDenney

[Preston]

Pseudonyms as user names are fine with me. What I would appreciate is that folks add their real first name to their posts if their user name is a pseudonym.

--P

[rdenney]

T'tain't funny, McDenney

You are requried to laugh anyway. We are starting with what I think is funny as the humor standard.

Rick "thinking this t'aint gonna have a good McEnd" Denney

[Struan Gray]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-11500-0994%2C_Berlin%2C_III._Weltfestspiele.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-11500-0994,_Berlin,_III._Weltfestspiele.jpg)

Ho Ho Ho


Struan "useful idiot" Gray

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Who is "we"? Do the moderators now make all of the decisions for the "owners" based on how they want to moderate?

[Kirk Gittings]

There is only one owner, QT, and he pretty much leaves the day to day running of the forum up to the moderators. He is not shy about voicing his opinion when he so desires.

[dperez]

Irrevocable posts seems reasonable to me.

-DP

[Ralph Barker]

Who is "we"? Do the moderators now make all of the decisions for the "owners" based on how they want to moderate?

There is only one owner, Q. T. Luong, who is also a moderator and, thus, included in "we".

[Kirk Gittings]

There is only one owner, Q. T. Luong, who is also a moderator and, thus, included in "we".

like

(I just hit the virtual like button.)

[Corran]

I would like to buck most people here and suggest simply enabling every user the ability to delete or edit their posts at will, forever, or their thread (including locking there own thread - helpful for the classifieds). I believe this is as simple as enabling the option in the forum software, as most of the other forums I post at have this ability.

I'm sure many might disagree, but we aren't writing scripture here folks. If some conversation gets mixed up because of a deleted post, and someone 4 years later can't parse through what was likely a flame war, who cares? Also, everyone has a bad day. Let bygones be bygones. The issues with transactions will be peer-moderated through the new sub-forum created, so even if someone deletes a whole thread to remove someone's complaints, they have recourse to call them out. (And let's be honest, if someone wants to be dishonest, they will do it regardless, so having that forum to look up problem folks is the way to go.)

And a -1 on real names. Give me a break. Can't enforce it, it doesn't change anything, and is just plain pointless.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

It seems to me that a lot of the rules around here are made just for the comfort of the moderators. I suppose that is ok since it is a "private" site, but if there were six different moderators there might be six different rules than what there are now. I think if a moderator complains about what she has to do then she ought not be a moderator.

[welly]

Regarding usernames, I see no point in enforcing (not that there appears to be any plans to) real names. How many Alastair Moores (my real name) are there in the world? Quite a few and I'm not that famous a photographer or person that it would make any real difference. My real name on this forum of hundreds and hundreds of users is as good as a pseudonym in all reality. And besides, who would know that my real name is Alastair Moore and not Frank Gittings or Kirk Denney?

[RickV]

I wholeheartedly support the philosophy of "once you post it, it's out there forever, and the forum moderators are not obliged to remove it." Make it happen.

[Rick (hisrealname) Denney]

I'd like to start using a psuedonymn. Please change my user name to: "Rick "his real name" Denney. If that has been previously assigned, I'd like to be known as "Ralph Barker".

You gotta be quicker than that.

[rdenney]

You gotta be quicker than that.

And then there's the guideline about not creating two accounts. Which one should I ban?

Rick "eenie-meany-minie-moe..." Denney

[Sal Santamaura]

And then there's the guideline about not creating two accounts. Which one should I ban?...Both!

[Tin Can]

Larry and Curly with be here shortly, Moe.

[Kirk Gittings]

Larry and Curly with be here shortly, Moe.

Like

(the LFF manual version of Facebooks "like" button).

[benrains]

Making it an irrevocable license sounds perfectly fine to me.

[Doremus Scudder]

I like thinking that this rather trivial discussion will likely be archived in perpetuity, until doomsday or server failure, whichever comes first, along with everything else on this forum.

IMO, irrevocable is just fine as long as the OP can still use his material as he wishes outside the forum.

Best,

Doremus

[polyglot]

Yes, absolutely content should be non-exclusively licensed, but that's kind of implicit already since we haven't agreed to an exclusive arrangement.