My previous blog, ranting about the strange notion V123 has about currying favor among its voice talent struck a chord with many of you, and I appreciate the immediate, and supportive comments.
If it's OK, I'm going to re-cap a couple of salient points FROM those responses, in case you haven't had time to see them.
Frank Frederick's reaction to the whole thing led me in a direction I hadn't thought of, which is intellectual property rights, copyrights, and who legally owns what.
Frank said in the VO-BB forum:
With the current proliferation of public networking sites stating they OWN your
content in perpetuity, and the concept of copyright on the internet
being a large gray area; the question of "who owns what" is valid.
My understanding is content created by the
website owners specifically designed for the use of or by the owner and
their visitors is "private" information and therefore may be
copyrighted. The process of filing a copyright for content contributed
by visitors to a website would be expensive and daunting.
Additionally content contributed by visitors
to a website is public information, according to my understanding. This
WILL go to a court of law to be decided.
Social networking sites are in the process of legal battles which involve YOU – as a contributer. Caveat: Be careful what you post and where – you may not own that information and it may come back to haunt you in the future.
How much content
of a post from one site may be copied without giving the original site
credit and without violating copyrights? The answer is not one word.
Courvo gave credit to V123 and mentioned them prominently. Although
Dave did not follow through with a WRITTEN request and release of the
posts content, he would, in a court of law and under current copyright
laws prevail due to this proper presentation. He did not claim the
content was his own and gave the websites owners credit.
Later Thursday, FaceBook made a big decision about content posted by it's subscribers, which Frank duly notes:
Facebook, an online social networking site, did a double take on their
new rules which stated the company owned the content you post forever.
Facebook now admits it does not own contributer posted content and is
currently attempting to rewrite their agreements to reflect the double
Faced with hundreds of thousands of angry online participants and
several potential class action lawsuits; Facebook hired attorneys to
investigate their position on the matter and through their research
found the new rules for the site were potentially damaging.
Prior to this action other social networking websites were
contemplating a similar clause in their agreements with respective
But maybe the most fun response, came from my friend John Pozadzides, author of OneMansBlog. I'm reprinting it here, even though it appears in the "comment" section of the previous article.
DAMMIT! That makes me hot!
You should tell those morons a few things…
1) Don't be sending robot crawlers all over the web putting load on
everyone's servers for the sake of your crappy content! The amount of
money you cost the general public vs. what you "think" you're
protecting is enormous!
2) If people legitimately quote your article and give full
attribution, you've got nothing to complain about… you FOOLS! I would
rather have people quoting me left and right all over the internet,
establishing my credibility, than have my content sit idle! THIS IS NOT
3) This is NOT a way to enhance your reputation. I can guarantee you
that if I ever had need for the services that company offered, I would
have just found reason to no longer need them.
Power to the people Dave!
Thanks John, Frank, and all the others who chimed in here and on the VO-BB!