Information About the AboveTopSecret.com Creative Commons Content Deed.

reply to post by depth om


If that is the case that post is worthless.

Seriously, did I miss the plot here?

I do not get it, what is there to "own"?

If ATS makes a buck providing everything they do here for free what is the problem?

I expect payment for this post.

reply to post by Walkswithfish


lol dude I'm not even sure if I know what I think I know.

They are co-owners of the content you post, by volunteering to contribute user content you grant ATS that right. If that's not the case I'm sure I'll be corrected. I guess you should get money if money was made using your generated content.

I really do appreciate the podcast section though. As a question to someone who could answer it, would there be any problem in retracting previously submitted podcasts? I have some files that might need to be retained for personal usage.

reply to post by depth om


If what you say is true, and ownership of ATS material is so important, and if it can be sold, I have a challenge for you, or any ATS member out there.

Search through all of your ATS posts, podcasts, videos etc that you have posted here on ATS, select the very BEST of your own materials posted here, take it and try to sell it anywhere and everywhere.... See how much it is worth to you outside of ATS.

(Must be original content posted originally here only on ATS and did not exist elsewhere previously)

I would be willing to match every dollar you earn if you take this challenge!



You've all got to be kidding me, you own whatever you post, it only has worth in context here at ATS... Don't believe me?

Take the challenge!

reply to post by Walkswithfish


I've sold two beats that are on here. I hear you though, but they've made one book already and could easily release a magazine that covers the topics at this site, dvd featuring user videos etc.

Originally posted by depth om
reply to post by Walkswithfish

 

I've sold two beats that are on here. I hear you though, but they've made one book already and could easily release a magazine that covers the topics at this site, dvd featuring user videos etc.

Two original beats, you posted here on ATS only that existed nowhere else?

Seriously, as for the book, mags, DVDs etc... again all anyone need do is take my challenge in my previous post.

Are you demanding that ATS share revenue with the authors of any of the material included in any of the above?

If so, how does one asses the value of a single member's contribution to any of the above?

How many ways can a penny be divided and distributed without costing more than it's worth?

ATS has non-exclusive rights, we own what we post, so we can SELL our own stuff, on our own... lets all go get rich!

I think I have one post that could be worth at least 25 cents. Just need a gullible buyer.





[edit on 14-7-2009 by Walkswithfish]

Originally posted by Implosion
Because you provide a place to host my thoughts, or my work, does not entitle you part ownership, in my eyes.

Ah. But surely the vehicle of exposure is at least as important as the content itself, wouldn't you agree?

Without a vehicle of exposure, you're sitting on your content with no audience, no feedback, no guage for refining the content. So, the provider of the vehicle of exposure becomes a partner with you in the evolution of your content.

Here's an example... At one time, up-and-coming musicians with amazing content (their music) might find themselves lacking the funds to purchase studio time for recording their songs, in order to move those songs to the listening public. A record producer would make an offer to such a starving artist: Allow the producer to be listed on the label as co-writer of the music. In this way, if the song was a hit, the producer would receive co-writer royalties from the sale of the record, thus repaying the producer for the free studio time extended to the artist.

This was actually a pretty good deal for the artist. If the song was a dud, the producer ate the free studio time. Studio time was not and is not cheap, so it was a real hit to the producer when his newcomer's song failed.

As a result of these arrangements, today we see some really famous songs with the producer listed as co-author along with the real author.

This puzzles and even enrages a lot of people who don't understand the nature of the deal — they think the producer was and is a parasite, siphoning off royalties that rightfully belong to the artist.

But no.

Without the producer's facilities and willingness to take a risk on a musician, the listening public might never have heard the music in the first place, it never would have become a hit record at a critical moment in history, and both the musician and producer might have failed in the music business altogether.

So... The vehicle of exposure made all the difference to the history of music, right?

Now look at what we have here — ATS is extending its bandwidth to its members, who share millions of original words and thoughts daily with an audience of like-minded members. ATS is the vehicle of exposure for many, many, many free and not-so-free thinkers alike, and this vehicle — in disseminating the message — is at least as important as the content of the message itself.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

And, yeah, I think its entirely fair that ATS take credit for and claim part-ownership of the content. If it weren't for this vehicle, we'd still be hitchhiking on a thousand lesser sites with less exposure.

— Doc Velocity

Oh my. I get a bit of a life and miss all the excitement on ATS. (The Winnipeg Jazz and Folk festivals were amazing btw.)

FYI - I cheered when ATS adopted the Creative Commons license agreement. YEAH!!! skeptic, simon, springer et al. ...Many (most?) other sites DO claim full ownership of post content.

IMHO - Our guys are AWESOME! Thank you skeptic, simon, springer et al for doing right by everyone and everything you can.

Also FYI - I support Open Access for scientific research, and Creative Commons for artistic works. [See avatar, left.]

...If you've read my posts, you know that I do a huge amount of research and post loads of references with links. Even though I don't get paid for posting here. I do it because I believe in it, and I care.

You may NOT know that if I think something important is being "missed" by the mainstream, I occasionally send my article's lead paragraph and ATS link to hotshot famous reporters who work for established mainstream publications. Which means I'm essentially inviting them to steal my work. It works too. Kinda like Abby Hoffman(?), who wrote "Steal This Book." ...Of course, the book went out of print because everyone did...

In fact, it's quite common for me to see my research and analysis rewritten and repackaged - often within days of posting here - and published elsewhere.

But that's okay. Because sometimes, getting the ideas and information into the public domain is more important than getting the credit and cash.

Bottom line: If you care about holding full copyright, don't put anything on the Internet. 'Cuz public access is what the Net's all about. As it should be. And ATS' Creative Commons terms are about as good as it gets.

Take care, sincerely,
sofi

PS. I'm still in love with ATS after 5 years. Looking forward to decades more.

PPS. There are lots of reasons why ATS is the best conspiracy site on the Net, but the Creative Commons agreement for posts is one of the most important selling points. imo

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Thank You Doc Velocity... You GET IT.

To anyone who fears, detests or otherwise believes our CC Deed is unfair, please DO NOT post your thoughts here.

For everyone else who has the basic common sense and decency to understand the basic premise of exposure (and the COSTS to provide it) in trade for a fair and equal share, please DO share your thoughts and insights.

Springer...

edit to add: Thanks Sofi, I KNOW you "get it"

[edit on 7-14-2009 by Springer]

I always felt a security for my original threads being posted here. If ever my writing was used else where I know ATS would go after it for me, or at least if I remember correctly something like that did happen and they were on it fast.

Anyway, just do not understand the problem here but wanted to add my .02

Originally posted by soficrow
...I occasionally send my article's lead paragraph and ATS link to hotshot famous reporters who work for established mainstream publications. Which means I'm essentially inviting them to steal my work. It works too...

In fact, it's quite common for me to see my research and analysis rewritten and repackaged - often within days of posting here - and published elsewhere.

But that's okay. Because sometimes, getting the ideas and information into the public domain is more important than getting the credit and cash.

That sounds like an obvious violation of the CC here.

If the source that is being used is from this site then isn't that a Derivative work.

edit:sp

[edit on 7/14/2009 by roadgravel]

Originally posted by roadgravel
That sounds like an obvious violation of the CC here.

There seems to be some really fundamental misunderstandings of some of the core concepts here.

In the case Soficrow described, it's perfectly fine since she is the author and can seek additional publication on her own outside ATS.

If someone took her work off ATS without her permission, and without giving her and ATS credit, then it would be a problem.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by roadgravel
That sounds like an obvious violation of the CC here.

There seems to be some really fundamental misunderstandings of some of the core concepts here.

In the case Soficrow described, it's perfectly fine since she is the author and can seek additional publication on her own outside ATS.

If someone took her work off ATS without her permission, and without giving her and ATS credit, then it would be a problem.

That what is sounds like. Posting an article here, sending a link and it is repackaged and published. Guess the question is 'what is the link'. Is it to retrieve the article or is it something else in the big picture.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
If someone took her work off ATS without her permission, and without giving her and ATS credit, then it would be a problem.

That's what I was trying to get at with my questions, but apparently I didn't word them very well! This is exactly what I wanted to know. It's also the answer I was hoping to hear.

Thanks for all this additional information.
Any questions I wanted to ask, have been answered.

Love your signature links, DD... You're a regular three-ring circus!

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by YourForever


No answer to this question?

Originally posted by YourForever
Are members consulted before their content is published? In say, a book.

When members agree to the Terms & Conditions, publication of their posts may appear in other forms -- as long as those forms are a product of The Above Network, LLC.

So far, there's only been one book, and member content was mere snippets... not entire posts. The content was used more as a starting point for further research by Jim Marrs. No one was "consulted."

If you were to use entire posts, or large portions of them, would the individual members be consulted? I understand you are not obligated to do this, but I am curious if you would be courteous enough to do so.

It's highly unlikely that entire posts would be used in any book form... but if we did, we'd send the member a U2U... which is as good as we can do as there's no "permission" to send them "admin" emails using sign-up email accounts.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Thanks for the response.