It seems like a great idea at the time- you, and a couple of internet buddies decide to get together and create a website together. You have massive plans to take the internet by storm, because this will be the greatest website ever created!

At first, things go smashingly. Your website gets traffic, and what started as a group blog turns into a podcast, which then sparks other ideas and further content.

Eventually, as always happens, life gets in the way. The excitement dies down, the enthusiasm fades, and possibly so do the relationships of those involved. Gradually the site starts to gather dust, disturbed only by residual traffic from the places it was syndicated.

So what happens if one day one of the content creators decides that for whatever reason, they no longer want that old stuff online?  “Take it down”, they say, “My posts and the audio content I helped create.” No matter what the group dynamics, the question becomes this- who holds the rights to digital content that was created with more than one person involved?

My thought initially was that in the case of one person writing a post for a group blog, that if they decide they want it pulled, it’s their content to pull, right?

Not always. Without a written agreement, the water starts to get a little muddy.

When someone willingly posts to a site, there is no question of consent to the use or syndication of their content. It’s a given that when you post something online, it gets sent out to wherever that feed goes, and it is stored in the great internet memory pretty much forever. To pull the original posts might take them off the first site, but the information will still be held in other places, and so it will not be truly erased by any means. The only real result might be some broken links, which is certainly not a help to anyone involved, especially a site that still sends residual traffic. The point is once it’s out there, it’s out there.

Google forgets nothing.

The same goes with podcasts, only the lines are less blurry. You can’t take one person’s voice out of a podcast, so in theory the podcast belongs to the group as a whole, and in actuality it belongs to whoever owns the space it is hosted on. You can demand something you contributed to be removed, but if you are not the sole owner, it is not actually yours to remove, so long as you consented to being a part of it to begin with.(Clearly recordings done without the other person’s knowledge fall into a different category altogether.)

As we were discussing this today, Paul came up with a great analogy regarding group sites and digital content rights. He described it like a book, written by two co-authors, with a preface by a third. Three years after publication, should one of those authors decide they don’t like what they did, or don’t care for the other co-authors, they can’t come back and demand the book be recalled and their pages removed.

As blogging becomes more prolific and more content is created digitally, people need to become aware of what happens to their collaborative content past the initial creation phase, especially when handing that content over to someone else’s domain.

Once you give content to another site, there is no asking for it back.

73 Comments on Group Blogs and Digital Content Rights- Who Owns It?

  1. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 4:33 pm (8 years ago)

    In your book example, an author could have his or her content removed from future editions. When you extend the analogy of the published page to a blog, each moment that the blog is published becomes a new edition. At the least, each new update creates a new edition of the publication.

    Unless they are specifically relinquished in a contract, a writer always retains the rights to future publication of their works and rights to derivative works, and the law tends to side with the material's original creator in disputes.

    Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 5:09 pm (8 years ago)

      While the book analogy was used above, it was with respect to someone coming along 3 years after publication and requesting that the books be pulled from store shelves… It would never happen.

      And to say that adding a new post to a blog makes it a "new edition" is just not accurate. The two mediums are overly dissimilar for that analogy.

      When you post to a blog it becomes part of the blogs structure, it's internal seo, it's page structure. Removing posts from a blog damages the blog and creates a lot of work which must be done in order to verify and repair broken links from other posts and sites, internal links etc..

      Also, even though you automatically own the copyright to something you create, that becomes an issue when you post it to a blog and don't specifically state the terms under wish it may be used. This is why we have Creative Commons licensing with different licenses for different usage and attribution.

      If you voluntarily post on a site belonging to someone else, or a site which you do not have ownership, there is no agreement that you have any right to remove it. You may be able to demand attribution, that it may not be republished or edited, but removal is not a right. You placed it willingly in the public domain.

      Extend that to sites with RSS and syndication mechanisms. Now you are publishing your content on a site that you know will be distributed and possibly syndicated to the larger web. You are doing this freely and willingly.

      In fact, many sites and major social networks rely on the fact that when you post there you do not have a right to delete your content.

      For example, when you delete your account from Facebook, the content you created does not disappear because it would firstly damage the site, with stray comment replyies etc flying around and secondly because they know that once this information has been put out there for any length of time, it's nigh on impossible to delete information from the infinite memory and replication machine that is the internet.

      Just to prove that point.. Go delete your Facebook account, go back a few weeks later and try to log in with your username and password – magically everything will still be there.

      But the crux of Sara's post was simple – and given away in the statement about "3 years later" – If something has been on the web for that long, deleting it is just going to damage the blog, create work for the remaining authors but not provide any benefit to the person requesting it deleted. Also, it's been in the public domain for way to long to be recalled without an exceptional reason.

      The simple point here is this, unless you specifically agree before hand that you retain all rights to content published on someone else's site, or even someone else's web host, you give up your right to have it deleted without an exceptionally valid cause. Whim and desire have nothing to do with it.

      Because your content willingly to the service and, in this case, apparently left it there for 3 years, you have no claim of copyright infringement.

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 5:11 pm (8 years ago)

      While the book analogy was used above, it was with respect to someone coming along 3 years after publication and requesting that the books be pulled from store shelves… It would never happen.

      And to say that adding a new post to a blog makes it a "new edition" is just not accurate. The two mediums are overly dissimilar for that analogy.

      When you post to a blog it becomes part of the blogs structure, it's internal seo, it's page structure. Removing posts from a blog damages the blog and creates a lot of work which must be done in order to verify and repair broken links from other posts and sites, internal links etc..

      Also, even though you automatically own the copyright to something you create, that becomes an issue when you post it to a blog and don't specifically state the terms under wish it may be used. This is why we have Creative Commons licensing with different licenses for different usage and attribution.

      If you voluntarily post on a site belonging to someone else, or a site which you do not have ownership, there is no agreement that you have any right to remove it. You may be able to demand attribution, that it may not be republished or edited, but removal is not a right. You placed it willingly in the public domain.

      Extend that to sites with RSS and syndication mechanisms. Now you are publishing your content on a site that you know will be distributed and possibly syndicated to the larger web. You are doing this freely and willingly.

      In fact, many sites and major social networks rely on the fact that when you post there you do not have a right to delete your content.

      For example, when you delete your account from Facebook, the content you created does not disappear because it would firstly damage the site, with stray comment replyies etc flying around and secondly because they know that once this information has been put out there for any length of time, it's nigh on impossible to delete information from the infinite memory and replication machine that is the internet.

      Just to prove that point.. Go delete your Facebook account, go back a few weeks later and try to log in with your username and password – magically everything will still be there.

      But the crux of Sara's post was simple – and given away in the statement about "3 years later" – If something has been on the web for that long, deleting it is just going to damage the blog, create work for the remaining authors but not provide any benefit to the person requesting it deleted. Also, it's been in the public domain for way to long to be recalled without an exceptional reason.

      The simple point here is this, unless you specifically agree before hand that you retain all rights to content published on someone else's site, or even someone else's web host, you give up your right to have it deleted without an exceptionally valid cause. Whim and desire have nothing to do with it.

      Because you posted your content willingly to the service and, in this case, apparently left it there for 3 years, you have no claim of copyright infringement.

      Reply
  2. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 5:54 pm (8 years ago)

    I think you're confusing technology with the law. The law is twenty or thirty years behind technology, and if the person who provided the content decides to challenge you on legal grounds, the difficulty or cost involved in removing the material will not be pertinent. Neither will the willingness of the writer to submit the work three years ago. If your contract doesn't specifically address removal of submissions, then I think you're going to have your work cut out for you, proving your case. In the long run, it may be cheaper to remove the material, take your lumps and re-write your contract.

    If you need to speak to a copyright lawyer, I know a really good one. He specializes in technology-related projects including the protection of intellectual property rights. He'd be able to tell you whether you have a legal leg to stand on.

    Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 6:11 pm (8 years ago)

      It may be cheaper, yes – but not necessarily correct. Again, if you put something in the public domain without establishing usage right, especially bu posting it on someone eles's site or host, how can you demand it's taken down? You have no right to that. You may/do have rights as to how that content is used if you can prove the basis under which it was posted, but a right of removal is not yours unless you can somehow prove that the content is being used in a manner for which it was not originally posted/intended.

      Reply
  3. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 5:59 pm (8 years ago)

    Also, your statement that because something has been published for more than three years voids the copyright is simply incorrect. In most of the world, the default length of copyright is the life of the author plus either 50 or 70 years. That's far more than three years.

    Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 6:08 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said that because something has been published for more than 3 years it voids copyright law – please reread what I wrote – I said that you have no claim of copyright infringement because they posted it willingly to the site more than 3 years ago. (And the time is not relevant to that) – If you post something publicly to someone's site you cannot then claim that they are infringing on your copyright by having it posted.

      Because you posted your content willingly to the service and, in this case, apparently left it there for 3 years, you have no claim of copyright infringement.

      Reply
  4. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 6:30 pm (8 years ago)

    "Public domain" as a legal term is defined as work that is not protected by copyright, so if the original creator did not sign away any rights, whether they be publication rights, rights to derivative works or (more applicably) broadcast rights, then the work is not in the public domain. In copyright law, there's a saying: "Having a copy does not mean having a copyright." You have a copy of the work on your blog, but the rights are retained by the original author, not necessarily with the original publication.

    Under the U.S. Copyright Act, a transfer of ownership in copyright must be memorialized in a writing signed by or otherwise agreed to by the transferor. If you don't have it in writing, just possessing a copy of a piece of writing doesn't necessarily give you any rights to that work.

    What is easy, what is fair, what is correct and what is legal are often very different things. You used a phrase or concept which I've never seen in copyright law, in my twenty-plus years of working in publishing: right of removal. I'd love to know what the right of removal is and where you found that phrase.

    Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being post – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being post – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being post – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being post – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being post – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being post – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being post – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:08 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being post – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion <span class="idc-smiley"><span style="background-position: 0pt 0pt;"><span>:)</span></span></span>

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion <span class="idc-smiley"><span style="background-position: 0pt 0pt;"><span>:)</span></span></span>

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion <span class="idc-smiley"><span style="background-position: 0pt 0pt;"><span>:)</span></span></span>

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion <span class="idc-smiley"><span style="background-position: 0pt 0pt;"><span>:)</span></span></span>

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion <span class="idc-smiley"><span style="background-position: 0pt 0pt;"><span>:)</span></span></span>

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:09 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessable, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are and English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion <span class="idc-smiley"><span style="background-position: 0pt 0pt;"><span>:)</span></span></span>

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:11 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and, in this case, potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:11 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and, in this case, potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:11 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and, in this case, potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:11 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and, in this case, potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:11 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and, in this case, potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:11 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and, in this case, potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:11 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and, in this case, potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 7:11 pm (8 years ago)

      I never said it was subject to it being in the "Public Domain" with regard to copyright law – The public domain also refers to something being "out in Public" freely accessible, freely viewable and, in this case, potentially open for syndication via RSS and other mediums.

      You are missing the point here, that it is not about simply possessing the piece of writing. It is about the fact that Subject A willingly posted content to Subject B's site. Subject B is the owner of the site and while I agree that what they may do with the content is the subject of copyright law, removing that content is it. The act of the copyright owner posting and publishing the content to that site is consent to have the content published on that site (otherwise what would be the point in doing it). What is done with the content after that is a matter of copyright law, but just because you hold the copyright on the original writing does not give you the automatic right to have it removed from somewhere that you have published it.

      Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed.

      It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement.

      With regards to "right of removal" – I should think that is incredibly self explanatory, – a right to remove something. And that is what we are talking about here – after you willingly publish something to someone else's site for the public to see, without a contract, do you have a right to remove it at will?

      Also, we could get into other murkier waters about the copyright owners obligation to the site owner after publication. There is an expectation involved that content published will stay on the site, after all, there is no basis for building and maintaining a blog if the content can be arbitrarily removed – But that is an area best left for another blog and another discussion I think 🙂

      Finally and perhaps the most interesting thing, or at least what is for me about all of this, is that quoting copyright law from the U.S. is in many cases pointless. With the U.S. only making up 13% of the English speaking online world – let alone the wider non-english speaking world of which the U.S. only accounts for 15.7% of the worlds internet users, this is an issue with much further reaching consequences than you are thinking about.

      I for one am not subject to U.S. law being in Ireland, yet my comments and content appear on many U.S. sites and many U.S. citizens have published posts and content on my site!

      Or better yet, what if you the are an English owner, in England and a Russian posts content to your U.S. hosted site.

      See how this can very quickly get complicated and needs to be taken beyond the realms of any one countries copyright law.

      Oh, thanks for the back and forth on this BTW – Enjoying the discussion 🙂

      Reply
  5. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 6:32 pm (8 years ago)

    You're right. I was confused by the fact that you pointed out the three years as being relevant in the earlier statement:

    "But the crux of Sara's post was simple – and given away in the statement about "3 years later" –
    If something has been on the web for that long, deleting it is just going to damage the blog,
    create work for the remaining authors but not provide any benefit to the person requesting it
    deleted. Also, it's been in the public domain for way to long to be recalled without an
    exceptional reason."

    Reply
  6. Melissa
    August 10, 2009 at 1:37 pm (8 years ago)

    RT @summerm Sharing: Group Blogs and Digital Content Rights- Who Owns It? http://bit.ly/NDDz0 <–a terrific post

    Reply
  7. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 8:09 pm (8 years ago)

    Actually, I used US copyright law as an example, because it has been until recently the loosest interpretation. We're just now getting to the point where most of the world is, with regards to copyright protection. Most places are much more strict when it comes to protecting copyright. It's true that some places are more lax, but those that follow the Berne Convention are not. So far, 164 countries (out of the 193 recognized countries) are signatories, including Ireland (as of 1927) and the US (as of 1989).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_i

    I'm starting to see what the part of the problem is. I'm using terms like "right" and "agreement" in a legal sense, and you're talking about non-legal concepts. My definition of "public domain" and "copyright" are the legal definitions, the ones you would be held to in a court of law. Your definitions are the commonly held ideas of what these words mean. However, just because a large group of people believe a thing to be true, does not make that thing true, and legally, making something public – i.e. publishing it – and placing into the public domain are very different things.

    Similarly, your phrase "right of removal" is simply the opposite of the writer's exclusive rights to distribution, performance and broadcast. Since these rights are not given away without a written contract, the lack of these rights necessary for the writer to lose what you are calling "right of removal" is also not valid without a written contract.

    I don't think you'd ever find any legal basis for an obligation on the part of a writer to a publication, beyond what they are contractually obliged to do. A writer may be under contract to provide work on a certain schedule, or to certain specifications, but making things easier on the publisher after a piece is published is asking a bit much of any legal contract. "Hardship" is, of course, a matter for a judge or jury to decide, but the burden would still be on the publisher to prove that their hardship outweighed the writer's intellectual property rights. It would be, in my opinion, difficult to prove that repairing some dead links on the internet constitute a true hardship on your part. Remember that you would only be involved in repairing dead links on your own site. Correcting links from other sites, social media sites and blog clearinghouses would not be your concern, and you couldn't legally claim repairing those dead links as a hardship to you.

    You may prevail, if the writer decides not to pursue the issue, or chooses to pursue it in an extra-legal manner. I'm just pointing out any legal recourse, or lack thereof, you have and I'm not a lawyer. (In case I didn't mention that before.) I'm a graphic designer and blogger.

    Here's a question: why not just replace the content of the disputed blogs with a simple removal notice, and a link to your home page? That eliminates the issue of dead links.

    Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 8:24 pm (8 years ago)

      I'm not disagreeing with you as to an authors right to their copyright and the usage of it. The point is whether or not you have a right after willfully and publicly posting it on someone else's site to demand it's removal.

      After you publicly post something on a blog or a website it becomes a matter of public record. If I come do a guest post on your blog I cannot later claim that you are infringing my copyright by hosting it (unless you edit, remove attribution or somehow use it in some unfair/unexpected means). Similarly, I am in no position to tell you to remove it just because I don't want it there anymore.

      It's much like if youm as an artist do a painting for me, give it to me as a gift and hang it on my living room wall. 3 years later you have no right to come to my home, demand entry and demand that I take the painting down or give it back.

      As for just replacing the page with a removal notice, it doesn't account for the lost traffic, content, SEO and long tail traffic and revenue a post generates.

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 8:25 pm (8 years ago)

      I'm not disagreeing with you as to an authors right to their copyright and the usage of it. The point is whether or not you have a right after willfully and publicly posting it on someone else's site to demand it's removal.

      After you publicly post something on a blog or a website it becomes a matter of public record. If I write a guest post on your blog I cannot later claim that you are infringing my copyright by hosting it (unless you edit, remove attribution or somehow use it in some unfair/unexpected means). Similarly, I am in no position to tell you to remove it just because I don't want it there anymore.

      It's much like if youm as an artist do a painting for me, give it to me as a gift and hang it on my living room wall. 3 years later you have no right to come to my home, demand entry and demand that I take the painting down or give it back.

      As for just replacing the page with a removal notice, it doesn't account for the lost traffic, content, SEO and long tail traffic and revenue a post generates.

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 8:25 pm (8 years ago)

      I'm not disagreeing with you as to an authors right to their copyright and the usage of it. The point is whether or not you have a right after willfully and publicly posting it on someone else's site to demand it's removal.

      After you publicly post something on a blog or a website it becomes a matter of public record. If I write a guest post on your blog I cannot later claim that you are infringing my copyright by hosting it (unless you edit, remove attribution or somehow use it in some unfair/unexpected means). Similarly, I am in no position to tell you to remove it just because I don't want it there anymore.

      It's much like if you, as an artist do a painting for me, give it to me as a gift and hang it on my living room wall. 3 years later you have no right to come to my home, demand entry and demand that I take the painting down or give it back.

      As for just replacing the page with a removal notice, it doesn't account for the lost traffic, content, SEO and long tail traffic and revenue a post generates.

      Reply
  8. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 8:46 pm (8 years ago)

    That is correct. Once you publish something, it becomes public. It is, as you say, a matter of public record. The ideas contained in the written piece do become part of the public domain. However, the specific language used by the writer are still covered under copyright. In fact, by publishing the writer's work, you unwittingly contributed to your problems, as the work is copyrighted (under the Berne Convention) as soon as it is "fixed in a tangible medium." That would be your site.

    I believe that sentences two and three of paragraph two of your comment are not correct. If you did a guest blog on my site, and you requested that it be removed, I don't think I would have any legal right to keep the content. Of course, that is the issue at hand.

    What you're talking about in paragraph three is a completely different matter. If I paint a painting for you, I've sold you a physical manifestation of the work. I retain the right to publish images of the work. You do not. I retain the right to make works based on the painting. You do not. I retain rights to publish the work by broadcasting images of it. You do not. I retain the right to assign these and other rights to others. You do not. It's your painting. It's still my work of art. Even if you sell it to someone else, I still retain any rights I haven't specifically given or sold. What you own is simply the canvas, the frame and the paint.

    Similarly, your site is your own property, and the physical manifestation of the content, in exclusion of the writer's intellectual property, is yours. Abstract ideas cannot be protected under copyright. That means you could replace the blogs in question with summaries or abstracts of the blogs, rewritten using different language but preserving the idea of the blog. Even then, there may be legal pitfalls, but you would be on a more firm legal ground than you are now.

    As for the last paragraph, it's up to you to counter sue over lost revenue, but I wouldn't plan on making any mortgage payments with that money.

    Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 9:00 pm (8 years ago)

      Starting from the top – this entire conversation is NOT about YOU publishing someone's work! It's about THEM publishing on YOUR site! Which is a very big difference!

      I would agree with you that if I took your work and published it on my site without involvement from you that you'd have every right to demand it taken down – but that is NOT what we are talking about here.

      As for the painting issue – again you miss the point – I never said they SOLD me the painting – I said they gave it as a GIFT. Which is essentially what happens with the vast majority of guest posts, guest bloggers and content contributors. 99% of the time they are not paid and when they are paid there is an agreement as to usage so they don't generally fall within the realms of this topic.

      If you GIVE me a painting as a GIFT that you did for me I can hang it in my living room, display it in a gallery and charge for it, or throw it in the fire – all my choice and all my right! I own the thing! – The question is – can you demand it back?

      And this is where the painting analogy draws the best parallel, I may not be able to reproduce the image, edit it or alter it – but you cannot tell me to stop other people looking at it, take it off my wall or tell me to give it back.

      Reply
  9. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 8:49 pm (8 years ago)

    There's a good example of the "idea-expression dichotomy" on Wikipedia's entry on "Public Domain" under "Disclaimer of Interest."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Discla

    It's the discussion of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the expression of that theory in "Origin of Species."

    Reply
  10. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 9:04 pm (8 years ago)

    "Politicians, journalists, celebrities the world over wish that it was a simple as I own the copyright / I wrote it / I said it – so I can have it removed."

    I had skipped over this, because it really deserved a separate treatment. Publishing statements by persons considered to be "in the public eye" is covered under "fair use." Fair use includes "research and study; review and critique; news reportage and the giving of professional advice." I can quote Barack Obama all day long in a story about his health care plan if I want, but if I republished his speeches as a book, or republished his book under my own name, I'd be in court before you could even say "lawsuit."

    "It's really simple to me, in that, when you post content anywhere you need to clarify under what terms it is being posted – Use CC licensing or get a written agreement."

    I agree that people need to be aware of what kinds of agreement they are entering into when they agree to "terms of use" or "end user agreements" on websites. That's one of the reasons I don't blog on Facebook or MySpace. Those sites force you to grant them certain publication rights as part of their terms of service. If your website does not include such a provision, then the writer retains their rights; plain and simple. Again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that you have some kind of rights. The author's rights are very clear.

    Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 9:11 pm (8 years ago)

      With regards to your statements on Fair Use – I am sure the Associated Press would have issue with that considering they are pushing that not even the Title of a piece (which is not copyrightable by law if I a correct) cannot be used without attribution and payment.

      And again, we are not talking about republishing anything! We are talking about the author publishing it for the first time on your site. You are not publishing it, the author is! At which point the authors rights are not so clear!

      Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 9:13 pm (8 years ago)

      With regards to your statements on Fair Use – I am sure the Associated Press would have issue with that considering they are pushing that not even the Title of a piece (which is not copyrightable by law if I am correct) cannot be used without attribution and payment.

      And again, we are not talking about republishing anything! We are talking about the author publishing it for the first time on your site. You are not publishing it, the author is! At which point the authors rights are not so clear!

      Reply
  11. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 9:34 pm (8 years ago)

    Apologies to Sara. We seem to have taken over her blog.

    If someone submits content to your site, you are the publisher. That's a given. You are the one who owns the medium of transmission. You own the website, just like a book publisher owns their presses. The person providing the content is not publishing unless they control the medium i.e. if they are disseminating their work on their own site.

    I missed the part about me giving the painting as a gift, but it doesn't change any rights I've given or retained. The ownership is only of the physical manifestation of the work, not the work itself. This is what I referred to as the Idea-Expression Dichotomy. I couldn't demand it back, except to throw common courtesy to the wind. However, I could still control some aspects of your use of it.

    I believe that, as the artist, I may be able to restrict you from showing the work to others. I think there is a precedent in this, as this would extend into the realm of broadcast and performance rights, which are exclusive to the artist. I'm not sure about that.

    Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 9:51 pm (8 years ago)

      As I said above –

      And this is where the painting analogy draws the best parallel, I may not be able to reproduce the image, edit it or alter it – but you cannot tell me to stop other people looking at it, take it off my wall or tell me to give it back.

      And no, I wouldn't think that the display of a painting would fall under broadcast or performance rights. If it did, artists everywhere would be selling their paintings along with a direct debit to ensure that they got their cut from everyone that walked in your living room.

      I know bars, pubs, clubs, restaurants etc.. have to pay a fee (I want to say license but am not sure) for broadcasts and performance, but it does not cover the paintings hanging on the walls.

      Reply
  12. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 9:35 pm (8 years ago)

    See my above comment. You're flat wrong about this. You are the publisher, as long as the site is yours.

    Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 9:46 pm (8 years ago)

      Okay. I own the site, but the author is also acting as a publisher! They are choosing to publish their content on my site. Often/most times on a group blog that will happen without any interaction with me as the author will have access to the publishing interface.

      Again, it comes down to what right do you have to demand something back that you have given away and has been used in good faith? Without exceptional circumstance – none.

      The author is choosing to publish their own work. While they can control what happens to it after publication in terms of use/replication/ republishing etc.. Demanding it be taken down again is not within their rights.

      Reply
  13. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 9:53 pm (8 years ago)

    Once again, you're confusing technological definitions and commonly used terminology with legal terms. As the owner of the site, you have full control over the distribution of the content. Just because you weren't constantly monitoring the usage of your site, that doesn't mean you didn't publish the work. In a sense, the code of your site, working behind the background, is acting as an agent in your stead, publishing the work at the bequest of the writer. The writer does not place the content on your site. They transmit the content to you (via a form) and your agents (scripts, in this case) arrange and publish the material. From a legal standpoint, you are still the publisher, and yes, they can demand that the content be removed, barring any previous written agreement to the contrary.

    Sorry.

    Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 10:25 pm (8 years ago)

      You keep neglecting the point that the author willfully published the piece, and might I add, as a means of deliberately distributing their work in order to build whatever they wanted to achieve – links, traffic, advertising revenue, sales etc..

      You're also neglecting the fact that by being a publisher or site owner you are providing the author with a means to promote their work, to publish their content. Which they are taking advantage of by publishing on your site.

      That system falls down if you can arbitrarily demand the removal of content for no reason.

      There is an obligation to the publisher that while maybe not particularly well defined legally still exists and that can't be neglected.

      The fact of the matter is that the (U.S) laws you are talking about are way behind the times and that is what this discussion is about.

      It can and could be argued that even without a written contract the act of submitting anything for publication provides the publisher with the right to publish the material in an unedited form with attribution for as long as they see fit – as long as 1 – the material is only published where the author intended it to be published. 2 The material is unedited and retains attribution and 3 – The material is not used in any unseemly, defamatory or illegal manner etc…

      It could be argued that the publishers right to do so is inferred and granted via the act of submission.

      A written contract is not always needed in order to waive rights. Actions can be enough.

      For example, in property law (I know this via a divorce case – I can only speak to the state in which it happened as I am not a U.S. citizen), if you have moved out of a home, after a set period of time expires (I'm not sure how long – but it's not that long, less than a year I believe) you no longer have a right to enter the premises even if you own the building as it is deemed you have abandoned it.

      It's not always about what's written down in black and white. In black and white you own the property, but you still may be unable to enter it in certain situations.

      These waters are very untested from a legal standpoint and will have to be addressed globally. It should be an interesting to watch what happens with all of this over the next few years.

      Reply
  14. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 10:09 pm (8 years ago)

    You know, I'm not familiar with the details of the AP situation, but if the title of the AP story provides actual content, then I could see how they could make a case for copyright. With a book title or song title very little of the content of the work is expressed in the title. It's a gray area. Like I said, I'm not a copyright lawyer.

    Reply
  15. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 10:11 pm (8 years ago)

    Sara (and Paul)

    Thanks for the interesting and entertaining discussion! I'm surprised we haven't had more input from other bloggers. This is an important topic.

    Reply
    • Paul OFlaherty
      August 10, 2009 at 10:37 pm (8 years ago)

      It's been great, and yes, you're dead right – this is a very important topic. Will be one to watch over the coming years 🙂

      Reply
  16. Suburban Oblivion
    August 10, 2009 at 10:25 pm (8 years ago)

    I probably should have sent you both outside with boxing gloves and told you both not to come back in until one of you is dead, but it's been far too entertaining to watch. 😛

    Reply
  17. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 11:52 pm (8 years ago)

    I completely understand what you're saying, but it's still an emotional appeal. It may not be right for someone to ask you to chop up your site to remove their content. It may not be fair, it may not be nice. It may be, depending on the situation, just plain rude. Still, emotional appeals don't make the laws change, and the examples and situations I've described don't depend on US vs International law. It's pretty cut and dried. Even when the Berne Convention was updated to account for new technology, it was still strengthened on the side of the producer, not the publisher or end user.

    Believe me, I'm not neglecting the point you make about the give and take of running a group blog. Yes, you did them a favor by providing a medium for their ideas. However, you've also made the point that they brought significant traffic to your site. Otherwise, removing their material wouldn't constitute such a hardship. Right? In a sense, you got taken. You got used.

    None of this matters. Unless you made them sign or otherwise agree to (a check box would have sufficed) a contract which transferred publishing rights to you.

    If the system fails because you got taken, then the only thing to do at this point is to learn from your mistake. From now on, have all contributing authors sign a release, on paper or electronically. Even that can only help so much. Comments like the ones I've made on Sara's blog today are still my property. I could email her tomorrow and request that all of my comments be deleted. I don't see that happening, but I'd be well within my rights to make such a request.

    I noticed you used the phrase "it could be argued" several times. Almost anything can be argued. I can and often do argue that I have a pink elephant with purple polka dots living in my guest bedroom. That doesn't mean I'll win those arguments. If the facts and the law are against you, as they say, all you can do is pound the table.

    "A written contract is not always needed in order to waive rights. Actions can be enough. "

    In the absence of either a written or oral agreement, I can't see what action would constitute the relinquishment of publication rights. If I wanted to give up my rights to the artwork I create, and let it fall into the public domain, the law isn't clear about how I would do that. It's not impossible, but it's darned difficult.

    Abandoning physical property rights is much easier. There are laws on the books (US and elsewhere) that allow for property owners to voluntarily or involuntarily abandon their property. This can happen with copyrights too, but it takes decades. The minimum, from what I can find, is fifty years, with some countries providing for exceptions, extensions and longer durations. Except in cases where the copyright is held by a corporation, they all begin with the death of the author.

    You're not considering speeding up the expiration process, are you?

    What is right or wrong is often subjective. What is fair or unfair is often subjective. What is legal or illegal is subjective too. As you say, it's not about black and white. However, when it comes to copyright, things are about as black and white as legal issues get.

    Unless you've got a lot of money for lawyers and a lot of time to draw out your case. In which case, you might win whether the law is on your side or not. It's happened before. Still, I wouldn't count on it.

    Reply
  18. The Big Blue Frog
    August 10, 2009 at 11:53 pm (8 years ago)

    I don't think it's been that bad. I usually wait for the ad hominem attacks before I put on the gloves…

    …or take them off.

    I'm not sure which one of those is more apt.

    Reply
  19. Nikki
    August 11, 2009 at 1:33 am (8 years ago)

    Oh goodness! I didn't get through all the debate yet, but so far it is very interesting! When I hand content over to someone, be it a comment or an article of some sort, I assume I am giving them rights to use it as they see fit for as long as they see fit, unless it is outlined beforehand. This is why I'm choosy about giving away content. For example, I don't feel comfortable writing for one of those stock article companies because I want my name associated with what I write. I'm not even close to famous yet, I need the exposure too much to just give it away. If I'm doing the research and the writing, I want my name to appear in the byline. If I leave a comment somewhere, I assume it becomes property of that blog. If I give content to a blog, I assume it becomes their property. I hope this made sense. The humidity here is destroying my powers of concentration.

    Reply
    • The Big Blue Frog
      August 11, 2009 at 1:31 pm (8 years ago)

      Those stock article companies are going to have contracts that will assign the rights to the articles to them. What we were talking about above is writing for someone without any written agreement.

      An exception to this rule is "work for hire." If you create something as a part of your job requirements, then the copyright is assigned to your employer. Where it gets hinky is freelancers and others whose work is beyond the scope of a regular salaried or hourly employee's job.

      Reply

Leave a Reply