Thoughts on “build threads”

[JoParticipant @jo]

Posted by John Stevenson on 29/07/2014 22:14:52:

As regards the terms on this website, they are clearly mentioned, nothing hidden and perhaps if certain people don't agree to them then they need to find another site, plenty of them.

Indeed, that is what most people who write build threads do. Neil's question was to why they may not choose to post them here.

What is sad about such Ts&Cs is threads, like Jason's various engine builds, have appeared on many forums concurrently over the years and David on MEW has been good enough to put them together as a series of articles so that people can have the pleasure of reading them without all the comments and interaction. But because the latest Monitor build has been posed here the Ts&Cs mean that David will not be doing the same with that series.

Jo

[Steven VineParticipant @stevenvine79904]

Posted by Jo on 29/07/2014 17:28:00:

Or could the fact they are posting on a Website hosted owned by a publishing company who claims copyright of the material posted here influence their choice of forums on which to post their threads?

My interpretation of the T&C's is that if I post material on this website, the site owners have to be granted permission to do what they wish with the material. This permission then allows them to show the material all over the world, in any shape or form, without fear of any legal comebacks.

But, as I see it, this agreement does not stop me from 'also' publishing that self same material elsewhere (or does it?)

I would appreciate clarification on this. Thanks.

Steve

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Posted by Jo on 30/07/2014 05:58:10:

 

What is sad about such Ts&Cs is threads, like Jason's various engine builds, have appeared on many forums concurrently over the years and David on MEW has been good enough to put them together as a series of articles so that people can have the pleasure of reading them without all the comments and interaction. But because the latest Monitor build has been posed here the Ts&Cs mean that David will not be doing the same with that series.

Jo

I don't think that is the case as I have shown plenty of photos on here of other engines that have subsequently been put on David's site. The T&C for user submitted content gives MTM "non-exclusive" rights unlike items submitted for publication in the mag. The reason I tend to post elsewhere is its a simpler process than here and easy to copy and past the same build to similar sites that use the same code for images etc.

J

Edited By JasonB on 30/07/2014 07:46:49

[JoParticipant @jo]

Jason, what you choose to do as a private individual is likely to be different from what David may choose to do as someone who runs another commercial website associated with publishing material associated with Model Engineering.

International copyright laws allow you to protect yours rights using something called "prior publication", but the wording used in the Ts&Cs here is clearly designed to overcome those protections. As to if MTM would actually take someone to court over it, that is another matter.

Edited By John Stevenson on 30/07/2014 10:47:48

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by JasonB on 30/07/2014 07:25:33:

… I don't think MTM claim sole rights. …

.

Jason,

I agree:

The style of Clause 3 does make for rather difficult reading, but it is not a "Copyright Grab".

It contains two phrases which give that comfort:

• owned by you
• non-exclusive

The closing sentence is, however, easily misinterpreted:

"You agree to irrevocably and unconditionally waive on your behalf in perpetuity in respect of such Content the benefit of any provision of law known as moral rights of authors or any similar law in any country."

• The important thing here is "law known as moral rights of authors" … which covers two specific rights and is neatly summarized on the IPO website.

 

MichaelG.

_______________

N.B. The foregoing is an Opinion given in good faith, but should not be relied upon.

_______________

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 30/07/2014 08:04:59

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Jason is quite right that the rights are non-exclusive.

It's interesting that these T&Cs are exactly what would give us the right to collect together the elements of a 'build thread', edit it, and repost it as an article as is being suggeted by users! I wonder if the site Jo uses that does this has T&Cs that explicitly allow this to be done?

Be reassured, the reason for waiving the 'moral rights' is not so we can use peoples' contributions in a 'derogatory manner'. The reason is so that when the material is re-used we don't HAVE to acknowledge the author. For a start, this would make things like having automatic display of gallery pictures on the home page impossible.

Neil

[julian atkinsParticipant @julianatkins58923]

hi jason,

please dont lock 'build threads'. they are a valuable resource for model engineers with different backgrounds, levels of skill and experience, and different types of equipment.

i have a few 'build threads' on the model engineering clearing house proboards site, and often ask for advice which is always most generously provided by fellow model engineers.

i dont agree with bill starling's comment that 'well done' comments are 'look at me'. when building something it is always nice to get the odd comment and in my case fires me with renewed enthusiasm to keep going.

cheers,

julian

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

Referring to MichaelG's post:

So that means that when someone posts a comment saying that "Rod Jenkins looks like a pig and smells like one too" I can't sue MTM? (apart from the fact that it's true, obviously). I can live with that.

Thanks for the clarification Michael. It's clearly a minefield when amateurs try to (mis)interpret the law but I take the view that a company that relies on it's contributers isn't trying to screw them.

Yours trustingly,

Rod

 

Edited By Roderick Jenkins on 30/07/2014 09:23:23

Edited By Roderick Jenkins on 30/07/2014 09:26:25

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

As the posts are tagged with the posters name and the name of the thread originator is known all the data you need to discriminate is available.

Is it not possible then to post-filter the thread on the website so that there is an option button to display the postings of the thread originator only or thread originator + everything else.

Martin

[JoParticipant @jo]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/07/2014 08:55:47:

I wonder if the site Jo uses that does this has T&Cs that explicitly allow this to be done?

MEM explicitly leaves all rights of any contribution with the contributor.

It is not a commercial site and has been set up in such a way to prevent it being sold out to a commecial concern in the future. It is both owned and run by people who do model engineering as their hobby with the aim of creating a warm and friendly community who can share information, techniques, builds, etc. without fear of commercial exploitation or having to suffer with adverts etc.

Jo

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Hello Jo

May I politely suggest that if MEM is so good and this site so awful, that you make your comments there, rather than here?

Nei

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

I think build threads are incredibly useful if one is thinking of building something and want any supporting info even if the thread only got part way. Every little helps. Also a new builder might want to resurrect an old thread to either ask relevant questons or perhaps continue it where left off. This is better kept together on one topic rather than starting a new thread which locking would prevent. This would apply even if the build were completed and edited into an article.

I would like to see every build in ME/MEW automatically get a parallel thread for extra pictures and perhaps good contributions getting extracted into the paper copy for posterity.

I really can't go along with the "if you don't like us go away" attitude as there are already far too many forums to keep up with. It is a bit like employers who say "if the money & conditions are bad just go find another job". Who approves of that attitude? An employer has a moral obligation to be nice and fair to it's staff and so does a forum.

Edited By Bazyle on 30/07/2014 12:05:09

[julian atkinsParticipant @julianatkins58923]

john (Bogstandard2),

for the miniature locomotive builder there are a large number of exceptionally detailed 'build threads' plus healthy banter and sharing of information on the model engineering proboards site, so i dont agree that your comments apply to 'every ME site'.

cheers,

julian

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Posted by Bogstandard2 on 30/07/2014 12:19:29:

don't bother if you can't make it understood by EVERYONE!!,

John, not everyone can achieve your high standards, both in build and documentation. A lot of engineers are communicatonally challenged, but can click a camera shutter. I think it would be a pity to put off less capable people from contributing and further we possibly need to (by pm not publicly) admonish anyone who feels the need to make heavy handed criticism of their efforts that then puts them off continuing.

If the detail in the text is not sufficient someone could always help by pretending to have less knowledge and frame a pseudo question like "As my lathe is rather small should I drill the hole in stages of 2mm at a time rather than try a 2 inch drill straight off?".

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I have no beef with MEM, to be honest, the more forums there are the better it is for everyone.

My frustration is with someone using this forum to undermine its own credibility.

There is no hiding that this is a commercial site and MEM isn't. Our terms and conditions are comparable with other commercial (and some non-commercial sites). Bear in mind that someone has paid lawyers to write our T&Cs and they are intended to protect us to make sure we have the rights to do things with user content that most people would assume were automatic. People are far more likely to take legal action against a company for wrongful use of material.

Some of what is being said is mis-information. The 'moral right of authors' does not apply to magazines or newspapers. This site is effectively an online magazine and needs the same flexibility to republish content in different parts of the website. Not also that, for gallery photographs, we undertake not to publish elsewhere without permission.

The BBC states: "5.2 If you submit your contribution to the BBC you must allow the BBC to use the material in your contribution in any way it may reasonably choose on a free-of-charge basis in any media throughout the world." It's true they don't state 'in perpetuity", but that's pretty much blanket permission to do whatever they want.

For the record, the MEM 'registration agreement' says absolutely nothing about copyright, but unlike us it only offers a discussion forum.

Neil

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/07/2014 15:08:02:

My frustration is with someone using this forum to undermine its own credibility.

Neil

.

 

And to use it as a vehicle for their own agenda. The majority of users on here never see the behind the scenes antics where posters post under different aliases , even answer their own posts and offer advise to others, including moderators from their different aliases.

 

For them it's just an ego trip.

 

Not just this forum but others as well from the same people with different names but same IP address's.

 

One Ijit from this forum even signed up on the HSM forum with an alias but used his own email address and IP.

 

Edited By John Stevenson on 30/07/2014 16:39:37

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/07/2014 15:08:02:

Some of what is being said is mis-information. The 'moral right of authors' does not apply to magazines or newspapers. This site is effectively an online magazine and needs the same flexibility to republish content in different parts of the website.

.

Neil,

… In that case, why does the closing sentence of Clause 3 make explicit reference to that point of law ?

Please note that I personally have no objection to the required waiving of 'moral rights'

… it is a simple and reasonable expedient to permit MEM to lawfully do what it likes with content submitted to the threads [which is, specifically; "to use, distribute, copy, sub-license, adapt, transmit, publicly perform or display any such content"] … and this, I maintain, is a considerably wider scope than you have indicated.

MichaelG.

.

P.S. The matter of pictures was covered in my earlier post.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 30/07/2014 17:12:13

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 30/07/2014 17:13:01

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Posted by Jo on 30/07/2014 05:58:10:

What is sad about such Ts&Cs is threads, like Jason's various engine builds, have appeared on many forums concurrently over the years and David on MEW has been good enough to put them together as a series of articles so that people can have the pleasure of reading them without all the comments and interaction. But because the latest Monitor build has been posed here the Ts&Cs mean that David will not be doing the same with that series.

Jo

Just to give the correct information, David WILL be covering the Monitor build later in the year and a few others in the future.

J

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Hello Michael,

… In that case, why does the closing sentence of Clause 3 make explicit reference to that point of law ?

Because legally this is a website not a magazine, so although it works much like one, we have to be explicit.

… and this, I maintain, is a considerably wider scope than you have indicated.

I accept your point but my intention was to highlight that even basic actions (like using a picture on the front page) really require something like the T&Cs.

The suggestion that nomenclature around photographs, galleries and albums might be a way round using photos is something of a canard! Be assured that the rules is we would ask permission before using photos off website.

This alone should be seen as a 'protection' for anyone posting a build log as what would be the point of printing a build in one of the magazines without any pictures?

As a final point I think its fairer to compare our T&Cs to those of other commercial concerns, for a 'social media' example see Twitter (see their section 5) or, on a similar vein, the American Home Model Engine Machinist website who have:

6.2. By posting content on the Websites, you also grant, and warrant that you have the authority to grant, the Company a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive worldwide right and license to display, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, play, make available to the public, use, and exercise all copyright and publicity rights with respect to any and all content that you post on the Websites. If you do not wish to grant Group Builder these rights, do not submit content to the Website.

They appear to be able to publish a book made up of members build logs and photos with no consultation. We couldn't do that without asking permission to use the pictures.

Neil

[Oompa LumpaParticipant @oompalumpa34302]

I can't believe this has gone to three pages. What a load of cobblers.

Nobody is going to die. And frankly, life is just far to short to be even contemplating discussing the minutae of terms and conditions of the forum. General terms certainly but to microscopic, no, Macroscopic detail is nonsense. If I type something here – good luck to the Magazine if they can use it, because it helps perpetuate the magazine.

And if the Forum cannot create interest, it cannot create revenue and if it cannot create revenue it isn't going to be here. So which way up do you want it?

Free forums – been there, done that and won't be doing it again. Being a Moderator with a conscience is a thankless task. And good bandwith costs money.

Even the whingers and nay-sayers, if there is no content you won't have a platform to whinge from. Some people just need to get over themselves and enjoy life instead of souring the milk.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not directing anything at anyone, I am old enough and man enough to do that in person – to anyone – What I am saying is get on and CONTRIBUTE. Or be forever an oxygen thief. It really won't hurt you or make you fat or give you piles.

graham.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 30/07/2014 18:41:34:

Hello Michael,

…

The suggestion that nomenclature around photographs, galleries and albums might be a way round using photos is something of a canard! Be assured that the rules is we would ask permission before using photos off website.

.

Neil,

I made no such suggestion.

In the first instance I was simply pointing out [mainly for Jo's benefit] that there are different arrangements for text and pictures.

I mentioned the discrepancy in terminology purely as hint to MTM … with no offence intended.

… it's what I did for a living, and old habits die hard.

MichaelG.

.

Having initiated this thread [via Jason], I think it's time for me to leave it.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Hi Michael,

This just proves that all of this could be sorted out in ten minutes if we were all sat down in a room, face to face…

Perhaps I will ask if we can have an 'open forum on the forum' at the Model Engineer Exhibition'…

Neil

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Posted by Oompa Lumpa on 30/07/2014 20:15:32:

.

It really won't hurt you or make you fat or give you piles.

graham.

.

So two out of three isn't bad then Graham ?

[julian atkinsParticipant @julianatkins58923]

am i alone in thinking that John Stevenson ought NOT to be a moderator?

he upset Graham Meek, uses foul and blasphemous language on the forum, and promotes his own engineering concern on what is supposed to be a non commercial site. i enjoy his banter sometimes and doff my cap to his far superior engineering background and expertise, but i do think he goes a bit too far sometimes. i will not hesitate to point out when i think someone has got something seriously wrong particularly when they hold themselves up to be some expert or are getting paid by ME and are leading the beginner astray, but i regard this as constructive. i havent seen a lot from john that doesnt use swear words or contributes much to the 'hobby' of model engineering or is constructive.

cheers,

julian

Edited By julian atkins on 31/07/2014 00:07:22

[dcostaParticipant @dcosta]

Hello Julian, good evening.

No you are not alone…
I agree with you on all points.

Best regards
Dias Costa

[Author]

Posts