mudcat copyright

Subject: mudcat copyright
From: greg stephens
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 10:36 AM

I expect this has been dealt with elsewhere, but I've not seen it. The current discussion on funny Mudcat threads identifies some items as being worth publishing. What are the legal implications of posting something on Mudcat? Does the writer still own the rights? or has Max miraculaously acquired ownership? Is there a difference according to the nationality of the poster? Anyone know?

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 10:38 AM

AS far as I understand it, if you write something here you own the copyright to it, not Max.

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: greg stephens
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 10:44 AM

You forgot your badspellcheck.JOhn.

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: Willie-O
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 12:51 PM

greg you NO perfectly wel this is not a speling site.

If Max owns the whole Forum I feel sorry for him--but I'm sure this is not the case. However if you post something it's liable to get picked up in folklore. We'd better shut down Mudcat immediately cause it turns out we're all a bunch of pirates.

Willie-O
Aghast

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: clansfolk
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 12:55 PM

I'm sure I said that first!

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: PoppaGator
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 01:13 PM

Who's the imposter posing as jOhn from Hull?

An entire post (even a one-sentence one) with perfect punctuation and no typos? Not bloody likely!

Well, there is the capital "S" is the opening word "AS" -- but anyone could make a piddling little mistake like that.

"badspellcheck," indeed, greg. The period-instead-of-a-comma with no wrodspace before or after was a nice touch, too.

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 01:48 PM

Wrodspace? Please define. Found wrob in the OED but not wrod.
(wrob- to speak of a matter, to give information. Nice short word! Wrobber- an informer. Words that should be revived?)

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 01:52 PM

I suspect that for anything posted to a public forum, copyright is a non-issue....

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 03:34 PM

I suppose that, as far as any claims of the poster, Clinton Hammond would be right (don't quote me in any legal tomes, though).

But the posting doesn't remove the rights of the author or publisher of material a Catter might put up, and technically could subject the posting Catter to copyright infringement claims.
Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: Max
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 03:38 PM

Truth is, there are really only about a dozen real people on the mudcat. The rest are just my multiple personalities and artificial intelligence experiments.

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 03:56 PM

You are a genius, Max.

We should all bow down and worship you. You are as close to being God as is possible.

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 06:02 PM

Thanks Max,

but I was the one who "outed" you months ago.

:-)

Robin

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: greg stephens
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 06:55 PM

Who are the dozen? Name the names, Max.

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 06:59 PM

I'm real, I think.

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: Amos
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 07:20 PM

That's the first clue, eh? Thinking you are real....


A

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 07:21 PM

"I'm not, therefore I don't think" (Setraced)

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: open mike
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 07:49 PM

well if we copy it right it is
copied right, which is not the
same as copyrighted or copywrited.
copy wrote? copy writ?

are we all quadrophrenics here?
or triskadekphreniacs?

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: Snuffy
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 08:38 PM

Seriously though. If you us the Cat to post lyrics you've written, you could later use that as evidence if someone tries to rip you off over the rights to the song - "I was there first".

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From:
Date: 19 Dec 03 - 10:42 PM

As I understand copyright, we own the copyright to any message we post, but for a compilation (ie thread), the complete thread and the forum of threads would be copyright Max/Mudcat.

This would be similar to a book collection wherein different authors' material is copyright by the author or another copyright holder, but the collection as an entity would be copyright by that particular publisher.

I think that's where CompuServer, AOL, and other places like that put their copyright on everything.

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 20 Dec 03 - 06:53 PM

I am the author and maintainer of the Technique: Piano Accordion for The Recycled Muso Permathread.

I have researched the material from many places, as well as including original material by myself, some of which material is personal judgement.

I offered the first draught to the Mudcat on the basis that I retained Copyright, but granted Mudcat Permission to have the online thread copy remain online.

Before I knew it - it had been promoted to a PermaThread. It is now gradually progressing to a Third Version. If I had kept on struggling in isolation, it probably would still be gathering dust unseen. Without the assistance of those at Mudcat, something that a few have found useful, would have been useful to none. I haven't made any money out of it yet (although if you want to express your thanks, I'm not gunna stop ya!)

As far as I understand, I still retain Copyright to the material (and the Title!), and I still grant Mudcat permission to keep the thread on line.

I do hope if Max (or anyone else who "owns" Mudcat!) has other ideas, they will tell me... ;-)

Robin

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 05:41 PM

As it says at the bottom of the home page as well as others:

All original material is copyright © 1996 by The Mudcat Café. Mississippi Crossroads copyright Mississippi Crossroads, Inc. All rights reserved.
All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owner. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc.

From previous discussions and reading the above, I take that to mean I own the coyright to anything which I may post as would anyone else, FWIW.

kat

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 29 Dec 03 - 09:59 PM

The previous poster is leading you A-Stray.

Consult the threads on "intellectual property." Powerful discussions and opinions, some of which are still in legal limbo.

Personally, and for most of the digital world...."once you (or anyone-else) share it on the web....it is free grabs for everybody."

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Look Buster!!!! If it were worth the effort...you would have marketed it already...but your inner-soul knows that no-one-gives-a-damn....or will pay a plug-nickle for your perambulating-pablum....

Just say, (in the wildest hypothetical sense) that Max,Joe,Dick,Susan are able to garner "a widow's mite" and score a publishing claim.... after years and years of gleaning, and gathering from the folk traditions....are you one to claim interest on the cash, checks and charity you have donated along the way?

Petty, petty people...filled with delusions of worth.

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 01:51 PM

Hey, Max - Am I real, or did you invent me?
-Pinocchio Offer-

Subject: RE: mudcat copyright
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 30 Dec 03 - 02:35 PM

JOe - I thought we had extablished that you are nothing but a clever AI sub-routine?

Any and all pictures, reported meetings, etc are of course just part of the global conspiracy.