Question about a forum rule

[pixelperfectg]

I noticed this statement in the forum rules: "CGarchitect reserves the right to republish any content from the discussion forums."

 

I was just wondering what the purpose behind this particular rule is? It seems a bit broad to me and could encompass some things that I may not agree with. For example, maybe it’s just to simply cover the legal bases if CGarchitect wanted to send out a free monthly mailer and it shows a few threads from the forums here. No harm or foul in something like that.

 

However, the rule could also mean that our (users) posts can be compiled and then republished in another form, perhaps a for-profit book? I’m not implying that’s the purpose here, just using this as a possible worse-case scenario.

 

Bottom line: Since this rule has such wide implications on user rights, I just thought it would be helpful to start some dialog about it’s purpose.

 

Thanks in advance!

[jinsley]

Is there any feedback on this? I'm in the same boat as Jeff, and just wondering what this particular rule pertains to exactly?

 

I generally post to this site for feedback/ to help others if I can... but definately would not want some things to be "re-packaged" in another form without my knowledge...

[Scott Erstad]

bump - interesting question here.

[SandmanNinja]

It might simply be there in case someone, somewhere quotes a word/phrase/sentence/solution and someone else says it was their IP.

 

Probably similar to those warning labels on DVDs, "by opening the shrink wrap on this DVD, you waive all rights to anything you see/hear/feel by watching this movie. It's all ours, unless it's a bad thing. Then it's all yours and we don't want anything to do with it."

[Jeff Mottle]

Hey guys,

 

Sorry I missed this post.

 

The intent of the rule was only put there to help facilitate the publishing of content in the forums on the home page, newsletters or in CGA articles. It was certainly never intended to suggest or facilitate making any profit from people's content without their express permission. I'll revise the rule so it's more clear. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.'

 

Cheers,

Jeff

[vizwhiz]

what about some of The Tutorials That have been posted here?

are They still copyright of The 'original' owner? i would assume so

 

actually

 

This brings up a potential $ income Idea for CGA

 

what if (we) someone writes up a series of mini-Tutorials

That could be sold for a small price (maybe $5, 10-20 US)

 

make up some kind of work flow index/Table of Contents

do some kind of wiki (i will NOT GIVE UP ON THIS IDEA!!!)

 

and Then SELL IT for CGA income (expressly for CGA income)

 

with all of The different softwares and rendering Technologies

This might be something useful, and This could be something

 

other Than what The 2 Brains (aka The 2 Brians) have already done

 

just another idea

 

Thanx

 

or how about?????

 

a php searchable database of ALL Textures/3d Models (for sale) or for free

with a $1 or $2 donation for using That searchable database, just To be helpful

 

why not put up a paypal donation button and just see what happens

i have been out of work for 5 months and just started a sales job 2 weeks ago

 

havent sold anything so i havent been paid anything

 

no money (not now or for The for-see-able Future) but

i would contribute $5 or $10 when economics are more favorable

Edited June 30, 2009 by vizwhiz

[Jeff Mottle]

Jeff, I saw you blogged a post about this rule on your personal blog. I sure would have appreciated a quick personal email for clarification before slamming the site and basically suggesting people should avoid using our forum because of this rule. The intent was not as you assumed and was really just to let people know that what they post might be used elsewhere on the site. I was trying to be transparent, not steal people's work. I don't seriously understand how you would come to that conclusion given how much I do for this industry. You've been around long enough in the industry, and this site for that matter, to know my personal ethics better than that.

[SandmanNinja]

Agreed.

 

I still think the "Professional Portfolio" is a good idea.

Annual fee, have a database that has a binary field (for the graphic file), title, description, and some key words.

 

A User Control Panel where the user can log on, update his portfolio, shuffle images around, etc.

 

The general public can see either:

random images

a search for keywords

a search for artist

 

Have a spot on the front page of the main website that picks "Random Image from our Professional Portfolio" - just to draw interest to it.

 

Links to Dig or promote the images to the "usual" websites/social networking sites

 

Just an idea.

[Jeff Mottle]

what about some of The Tutorials That have been posted here?

are They still copyright of The 'original' owner? i would assume so

Of course!

 

 

 

This brings up a potential $ income Idea for CGA

 

what if (we) someone writes up a series of mini-Tutorials

That could be sold for a small price (maybe $5, 10-20 US)

I'm actually working on something much bigger than this now. Details to be posted in the next few months.

 

 

why not put up a paypal donation button and just see what happens

i have been out of work for 5 months and just started a sales job 2 weeks ago

As long as we are soliciting commercial advertising, I would not feel comfortable accepting cash in support of the site. Just doesn't seem right. I'd rather have contributions from members in the form of articles or reviews. Edited June 30, 2009 by Jeff Mottle

[Jeff Mottle]

Agreed.

 

I still think the "Professional Portfolio" is a good idea.

Annual fee, have a database that has a binary field (for the graphic file), title, description, and some key words.

 

A User Control Panel where the user can log on, update his portfolio, shuffle images around, etc.

 

The general public can see either:

random images

a search for keywords

a search for artist

 

Have a spot on the front page of the main website that picks "Random Image from our Professional Portfolio" - just to draw interest to it.

 

Links to Dig or promote the images to the "usual" websites/social networking sites

 

Just an idea.

 

I've been working on the new version of CGA for the last few weeks and hope to have it launch in 2-3 months, sooner if I can. The gallery you describe is exactly what I intend to do, but I'm trying to figure out the best way to pull it off. All of the money I had earmarked to develop CGA2, is now paying my mortgage and bills. I'm still researching.

[SandmanNinja]

The gallery you describe is exactly what I intend to do.

 

Fantastic!

 

Great minds think alike...

 

Looking forward to it Jeff.

 

I've done exactly what I described, but in a Microsoft environment (vbscript & asp & sql) - wouldn't have a clue how to do it in a unix-type of environment.

[pixelperfectg]

Jeff, I saw you blogged a post about this rule on your personal blog. I sure would have appreciated a quick personal email for clarification before slamming the site and basically suggesting people should avoid using our forum because of this rule.

I honestly don't see how I "slammed" either of the sites that I mentioned in my blog post. I simply thought that particular blog post would be helpful to raise awareness about some broad forum rules. That being said, if I've offended you with this particular blog post, then I sincerely apologize to you because that was FAR, FAR, FAR from my intention.

 

The intent was not as you assumed and was really just to let people know that what they post might be used elsewhere on the site. I was trying to be transparent, not steal people's work. I don't seriously understand how you would come to that conclusion given how much I do for this industry. You've been around long enough in the industry, and this site for that matter, to know my personal ethics better than that.

As I'm sure you'll agree, I think it's important that we all be vigilant in protecting our intellectual property rights. Maybe I'm just dense, but I honestly didn't know the intention behind such a vague rule...hence I thought it would be helpful to raise awareness to such rules. Logic being, if I didn't understand the intention of the rule, others probably don't either.

 

In retrospect I can see how this particular blog post could be interpreted in many different ways (just like the forum rule I mention). I thought it was clear at the time and in my mind it was and there was no harm intended. As they say...hindsight is 20/20 and now knowing that I've offended you I do wish I had simply emailed you (and the AREA site) about my concerns prior to the blog post.

 

In closing I apologize to you again because I genuinely did not mean to offend you or anyone else with my blog post. In my mind, I was just raising user awareness about forum rules.

[Jeff Mottle]

 

As I'm sure you'll agree, I think it's important that we all be vigilant in protecting our intellectual property rights.

 

Absolutely, which is why I am glad you brought it to my attention, but perhaps an update to your blog post would be in order. It's unlikely that someone who reads that is going to read this entire post, or our updated rules. As it stands the assumption you've painted is that we're going to steal everyone's work or abuse people's work. Perhaps something along the lines of "you brought it to my attention and I agreed it could be misinterpreted and that the rule was updated . It was only there to let people know that their forum posts might be featured elesewhere on the site or in our emails etc."

 

There is nothing I value more than my reputation or that of this site, so I would hate for your post to also be misinterpreted and this site suffer. It's one thing to post it on this site to inquire about something, but another when you post it elsewhere on the internet, especially without getting clarification.

 

 

In closing I apologize to you again because I genuinely did not mean to offend you or anyone else with my blog post. In my mind, I was just raising user awareness about forum rules.

 

No hard feelings, but please do be careful about where you post potentially damaging comments. If I had heard your feedback, but done nothing about it, then posting elsewhere would be warranted, but I took your feedback on board and updated the rule to be more clear.

 

Cheers,

Jeff

[pixelperfectg]

I was in the process of updating that blog entry when I received your reply here. I've updated it again to say this:

 

6/30/2009 Update: Both the AREA & CGA sites have responded to my posts about the concerns I had over these vague rules. Thanks to the replies I've received in the threads listed above my concerns about these particular rules at the AREA & CGA sites have been completely removed.

 

Now, if you've read through this entire post and come away with the impression that you can not trust either the AREA or CGA...then you've misinterpreted the meaning of my post here. I primarily wanted to shed some light on these particularly vague forum rules to raise user awareness. I did NOT intend to portray either of the sites in a negative manner.

 

Jeff Mottle (owner of CGArchitect) has even updated this rule because as this was brought to his attention he agreed that this rule could be misinterpreted. So some good has come from this blog post! (that's probably a first...lol).

 

There is nothing I value more than my reputation or that of this site, so I would hate for your post to also be misinterpreted and this site suffer. It's one thing to post it on this site to inquire about something, but another when you post it elsewhere on the internet, especially without getting clarification.

 

No hard feelings, but please do be careful about where you post potentially damaging comments. If I had heard your feedback, but done nothing about it, then posting elsewhere would be warranted, but I took your feedback on board and updated the rule to be more clear.

Thank you for modifying the rule & for all you contribute to the community. I will definitely learn from this experience. I think I should just stick with providing tips-n-tricks on my blogs rather than attempting public service announcements!

 

EDIT: I've also modified the original blog entry to hopefully remove and/or clarify some of the verbiage that may be misconstrued as negative towards either the AREA site or CGA.

Edited July 1, 2009 by pixelperfectg

[amer abidi]

nice one guys

[maryam]

Thank you very much Jeff Patton, because:

If you wouldn't bring me and many other's attention to this matter, by only reading forum rules we would have had some doubt for ever.

 

Thank you very much Jeff Mottle for:

All things you have done to help lots of artist in CGA, cg industry and clarifying this matter quickly.

[Scott Erstad]

I love productive discourse of a legitimate subject.

Well played.

 

Scott

[Ernest Burden III]

We should all assume that anything we type and hit 'post' has entered the public domain. While that isn't technically true in a legal sense, it's a likely real-world result. That says nothing about the owners of any site, just the free-for-all nature of the interwebs. Google can find everything I've ever written online and deliver it to anyone on Earth who bothers to ask, even has caches of stuff that's no longer online. How would I enforce my IP? I couldn't, really. It's better to just keep in mind that posting online is like having a conversation in Grand Central Terminal. It's a public place, anyone can overhear you and take what you say down and use it.

 

However, to the original point--this site, like many others we participate in, is a business owned by someone who has a right to use it to make money. As long as that is disclosed, posting on the site should involve some level of consent to allow the owner to monetize you posted in some ways. Our posts build value in the site as a business. A forum with no user posts is worthless. We are choosing to help build the site's value with our posted knowledge. If that is objectionable to anyone, they should not post here or anywhere they don't own. Just read.