# FEEDBACK: ContractorTalk.com Posts in a Free Trade Magazine



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

*FEEDBACK REQUEST!*
I've been approached by a publisher of several free trade magazines to work together with them on a new feature that they want to publish. What is this new feature? Your posts. *Your feedback is needed on this issue and I WILL NOT move forward with this unless I see members supporting the idea in this thread*. Please read on....

*DETAILS:*
Every month one thread (dicussion) will be published in a trade magazine. The thread will be edited down removing the usernames, company names, and any off topic posts. What will be left is some good content as well as a label as to where the posts came from and how readers of the magazine can participate in ContractorTalk.com. 

If we move forward with this idea there will be an opt out option for users who do not wish to have their content published in this magazine. In your control panel there will be a box that you can check that says "please do not publish my posts in XYZ Trade Magazine". If you check this box a © icon will show up under your username and avatar on each post. If this option is selected then you posts will not show up in the magazine.

*WHY DO THIS?*
There are a lot of great contractors who are not online yet. A lot of guys just don't like technology and the idea that there is a website out there that is highly relevant like ContractorTalk.com hasn't even occured to them. 
I believe that this exposure will help draw some of these guys in and make this forum a better place. The more information that is exchanged here the better we will all be.

ContractorTalk.com will also get some free advertising in some of the companies magazines. Not only will the posts/content be labeled as from ContractorTalk.com but we will also get a 1/2 page ads in three of their magazines which will reach over 100,000 people.
*
SO WHAT DO YOU THINK?*
Please post your feedback in this thread. I want to hear what everyone has to say before moving forward with this or turning it down. Thanks.


----------



## ron schenker (Dec 11, 2005)

I don't see any down side. You have my blessings!


----------



## ricpacer69 (Mar 4, 2006)

Sounds good to me! :thumbup:


----------



## tcase27 (Dec 18, 2004)

sounds like a good idea go for it.


----------



## dayspring (Mar 4, 2006)

Go for it!


----------



## AAPaint (Apr 18, 2005)

My question is...if my posts are published in their magazine, I would hope that in no way infers they have the rights to the information I post. Often what I post here I save to use as content for homeowners on my own website.


----------



## jproffer (Feb 19, 2005)

Aside from AA concerns (which I'm wondering about also), I say go for it.:thumbsup:


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

AAPaint said:


> My question is...if my posts are published in their magazine, I would hope that in no way infers they have the rights to the information I post. Often what I post here I save to use as content for homeowners on my own website.


Your content is just that.... your content. By publishing this content the magazine will not be taking ownership of it, only displaying your content to the public just like this site does. But instead of being online it is in a magazine.

Does that make sense?

Your content remains your content... and if you ever had any concerns about them publishing it you can always opt out.

Thanks for the comments so far... keep them coming! :thumbsup:


----------



## IHI (Dec 25, 2004)

wtf right?:thumbup: look like things are going really good for ya Nat.:thumbsup:


----------



## Eric K (Nov 24, 2005)

Glad to see how much this site is growing. I wouldn't mind seeing things published. Same thing as on here but on paper.


----------



## N.E.Bldg&Rest.LLC (Aug 18, 2005)

I'm with AApaint and Jproffer, other than that :thumbsup:


----------



## Tileworks (Jul 9, 2005)

Go for it.

If I ever post anything that I want to be clear belongs to me, I'll publish it on a web page and quote myself as the source in my post.

It's just like quoting any other site or book as a source.

- Bob


----------



## slickshift (Jun 14, 2005)

Trade Rag gets content
Contractor Talk gets more traffic
It'd be nice if that worked into higher ad rates for the site

It's probably a good idea, for the Rag and the Site

For those that are worried about their intellectual property rights over things posted, you've got just as much rights over posts here as anything else you write that's plastered all over the interweb
More so, in fact
Once it's down in tangible form, it's yours

Posting here with the time/date stamp makes it pretty obvious you are the source
If you are concerned, you can always use the copyright symbol in your sig, but it's really overkill
I have seen it before

You do not need to register a copyright for it to be legal
Typing it in such a public forum with the time/date stamp is plenty


----------



## Patty (Jan 21, 2006)

*How Cool!*

I think it is a tremendous compliment to this site, and everyone that participates on it!:thumbsup: Three cheers to you, Nate, for making it all happen!:notworthy You should feel very proud of your accomplishments! :thumbup:


----------



## Steve Unkie (Jan 21, 2006)

Go for it!!

Steve Unkie.


----------



## MinConst (Oct 16, 2004)

:thumbup: I say go for it Nate.


----------



## Gordo (Feb 21, 2006)

:thumbsup:


----------



## JustRightCo (Feb 20, 2006)

soounds great! do we get a free subscription :


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

JustRightCo said:


> soounds great! do we get a free subscription :


Yes, everyone who wants a magazine will get one... and if you indicate that you heard about them from ContractorTalk.com (once you find out who they are) you will be placed on a special list so your name and address is never sold like some free trade magazines do. I made sure of that!

Thanks for all the positive feedback guys...


----------



## Big Dave (Feb 23, 2006)

:thumbsup:


----------



## Melissa (Feb 23, 2006)

As if I post anything worth publishing, but here it goes. I just opted in...


----------



## 747 (Jan 21, 2005)

I say do what ever you have to do. It might bring more sponsors to your forum.


----------



## snapper21 (Mar 13, 2006)

I say GO FOR IT!!!!!!!! But be warned this may bring in more DIY'ers to the forum. Great exposure for the site.


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

snapper21 said:


> I say GO FOR IT!!!!!!!! But be warned this may bring in more DIY'ers to the forum. Great exposure for the site.


I don't think it will. These are professional trade magazines... not anything a DIYer would get a hold of.


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

I missed this thread somehow.

Go for it Nate, it's your site, you own the rights to anything we write on it so do with it what you want. It's nice of you to clue us in, but you certainly don't need our premission.


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

Mike Finley said:


> I missed this thread somehow.
> 
> Go for it Nate, it's your site, you own the rights to anything we write on it so do with it what you want. It's nice of you to clue us in, but you certainly don't need our premission.


 That's not necessarily true. There IS a question of if someone needs permission to republish content posted in a public forum like this but there is no question that I do not own these posts. The content of these posts belong to the poster. I only provide the framework in which those posts can be displayed and communicated.

That may sound like I'm splitting hairs the its what keeps me out of legal trouble. If someone slanders someone, posts copyrighted material, or anything else... that is the responsibility of the poster. They own that content.. not me. 

That is why we are asking everyone to update their profiles so we can move forward with this. http://www.contractortalk.com/profile.php?do=editprofile

THANKS!


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

I should be more specific in the terms I use. Actually you don't own the rights, the copyright is created at birth to the author on a forums such as this, but you can own the right to use it in anyway you please. I assumed in your TOS you express these rights.

AOL has set many of the precedents in regard to posting on public forums back in 1998 and laid all the legal ground work for you already. I guess I should clarify if you haven't already you certainly should update your TOS on this site. I assumed maybe wrongly that you already had something as such in place

_By submitting content to public areas of AOL (such as message boards and chat rooms) you represent that you have permission to do so. And in doing so, you grant AOL Group Companies a license to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, show in public and create derivative works from that content in any form, anywhere, and waive all moral rights (namely, the right to be identified as the author, and the right to integrity, of the content) and undertake that all such moral rights have been waived in respect of the content. You also grant other users the right to use such content for personal, non-commercial purposes. _

Any site like this one the content is the site, as a business owner you certainly should be protecting your rights to the content. It may be nice and touchy feely for you to be thought of as mr. nice guy but I can't imagine you have the intentions of spending all your time and money as you have to create this site and don't recognize at some point you need to think of maximizing or at least protecting it as a business. Even from the stand point of ever wanting to sell this site without a TOS as simple as the above I would think you are severely reducing the appraised value of the site since the buyer wouldn't be getting what has come to be common place with sites like this, which is the rights to use the content.


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

I'm not saying I don't own any rights. I own the rights to the organization of the content which is this site. But I do not own the ideas in the post from what I understand and I'm not sure I want to. If I do aren't I liable for that content and what is says?

If someone says cross these two wires and it kills someone... is that my content or is it the posters content? I cannot possibly read every post on this site and make sure its legit. 

Does that make sense?

If you have more info please let me know but this is the way I have always understood it.


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

*Mike: *this is what is in my TOS right now about this.
------------------------------------------------------------------

5. PUBLIC CONTENT ON CONTRACTOR TALK

Any and all content posted for inclusion in publicly accessible areas of Contractor Talk are the responsibility of the creator. Contractor Talk makes no claims or warranties about such information or its authenticity. Upon posting any content on Contractor Talk, you grant Contractor Talk the non-exclusive right to publish, modify and use such content solely for the purpose of displaying such content.

6. LIMITATION OF RE-USE

You agree not to reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit for any commercial purposes or noncommercial purposes any portion of the services or content contained within Contractor Talk and its subsidiary sites. In order to use any content, graphical art, photos or files owned by or published by Contractor Talk, direct, written authorization must be obtained from Contractor Talk with no exceptions at any time for any reason.


----------



## vinylguy (Mar 18, 2006)

hey nat sounds great, ha i'm a poet and don't know it! LMAO!!!! anyways i was wondering seeing how a lot of post on here are made up on service magic bashing and praising alike will such content be posted or because they are such huge advertisers in the trade mags will this content be deleted?


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

They are reprinting this whole site or anything even close to that. 
What they are doing is picking ONE thread a month that may be of interest to their readers. 
Then, they only use select posts from that thread that contain good content. 

So, a thread bashing Service Magic would probably never make it to press. Does that make sense?


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

I think most of what we are discussing revolves around 3 issues.

1) Protecting yourself from being sued by actions of your members
2) Who owns what on this site
3) Your ability to reproduce content on this site for personal or financial gain

Here are some web references - 

*1) Protecting yourself from being sued by actions of your members* - I'm pretty sure you fall under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/1902780E-68C9-436B-925AC37E42F4CD71/104/284/205/ART/

2) *Who owns what on this site*
http://www.samizdat.com/soc4.html

3) *Your ability to reproduce content on this site for personal or financial gain* -
From Circuit Cities Forum:
*Who owns the content of my post? 
If you do submit a post, you grant Circuit City a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual and irrevocable, right to use, reproduce and modify, as we deem necessary, such content on the circuitcity.com website. Posting copyrighted items without the permission of the copyright owner is not permitted. 

You represent and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content that you post, that the content is accurate to the best of your knowledge and belief, and you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Circuit City and its directors, officers and employees from any resulting liability. Circuit City takes no responsibility and assumes no liability for any content posted on the discussion forum. *

If it was me I would give notice in the TOS that anything posted here is fair game for you to do with what you like. Like I said the content of a site like this is the site, if it was me I would want the ability to be able to use that content in anyway possible since you never know where things will take you and what someday you might want to do.

If it was me I would also consult with a good attorney about all this, I think it is way too important.


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

By the way I do hope they are going to choose "The Music Game" thread!


----------



## slickshift (Jun 14, 2005)

Mike Finley said:


> AOL has set many of the precedents in regard to posting on public forums back in 1998 and laid all the legal ground work for you already....
> 
> _By submitting content to public areas of AOL (such as message boards and chat rooms) you represent that you have permission to do so. And in doing so, you grant AOL Group Companies a license to use, reproduce, modify, distribute, show in public and create derivative works from that content in any form, anywhere, and waive all moral rights (namely, the right to be identified as the author, and the right to integrity, of the content) and undertake that all such moral rights have been waived in respect of the content. You also grant other users the right to use such content for personal, non-commercial purposes. _


Just to be perfectly clear (picking nits)
That is an AOL deal, and not a _legal_ precedent in any way shape or form

AOL wants to own everything
If you want AOL, you sign away your rights of ownership of your posts

It's legal, and a precedent for other ISPs, and perhaps forum owners, to follow perhaps (if they want to own the "posts"), but not establishing law


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

Yea, I don't hold that view and actually the link you gave me Mike seemed to prove what I thought was true is: http://www.samizdat.com/soc4.html

Anyways, I think our opt-in or opt-out program is best. You guys give me the chance to publish if you want to be in the magazine. If not, I wont do it. Plain and simple.


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

I just hope enough people update their *PROFILE *so we can make this happen. But if not... oh well.

I'll make a general announcment to the board soon in case some are not seeing the posts to do so in this thread. I just want to make sure I have the wording right first.


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

slickshift said:


> Just to be perfectly clear (picking nits)
> That is an AOL deal, and not a _legal_ precedent in any way shape or form


I'm referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act signed into law by President Clinton back in 98 which was created based on ISP getting sued for content on their servers put their by their customers.

The clip from AOL TOS is basically the same as any major Forums TOS, the Circuit City one I posted is basically identical, I could post dozens with almost identical verbage.


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

Mike Finley said:


> I'm referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act signed into law by President Clinton back in 98 which was created based on ISP getting sued for content on their servers put their by their customers.


Yes, and I agree that I am protected under that law. Although we still try to go above and beyond if possible. Thanks for that linke.


Mike Finley said:


> The clip from AOL TOS is basically the same as any major Forums TOS, the Circuit City one I posted is basically identical, I could post dozens with almost identical verbage.


 I think the AOL forums go a bit beyond the normal view but that may be my misunderstanding. 

From the link you gave me: http://www.samizdat.com/soc4.html


samizdat.com said:


> Second, if someone posts a message at your Web site (in a forum or a chat session or by some other mechanical means), by so doing, that person is saying that it is okay for that material to be available to the public from your site. If you wanted to take these postings and publish them in a different mode -- for instance, include them in a printed book -- then you would need to go back to the authors and ask for their explicit permission to do so. Even though the material is at your site, and even though it makes no mention of copyright, the material in fact belongs to the person who wrote it.


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

Nathan said:


> Yea, I don't hold that view and actually the link you gave me Mike seemed to prove what I thought was true is: http://www.samizdat.com/soc4.html


Actually I think you didn't read far enough. He explains copyright and ownership but he also explains how a TOS extends your rights to use of your members copyrighted content.

*Copyright*
(1) *"if someone posts a message at your Web site ...If you wanted to take these postings and publish them in a different mode -- for instance, include them in a printed book -- then you would need to go back to the authors and ask for their explicit permission to do so. Even though the material is at your site, and even though it makes no mention of copyright, the material in fact belongs to the person who wrote it. "*

*TOS*
(2) *"Yes, you can include legal wording at your site indicating what happens to rights if people post material there... ...and you might want them to assign to you the non-exclusive right to reuse this material in other formats... You will see legal notices of that kind at some commercial sites, perhaps set up so that you have to click on a particular link to acknowledge that you agree to the terms before proceeding."*

He also hints upon how to protect yourself under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act _*"If you see something that shouldn't be there, simply remove it and notify the poster why you did so. "*_

Like I said, it's great if you want to operate on a more grass roots level of management of contractortalk.com, but let's not confuse what you *have *to do with what you *want *to do. Legally you have alternatives. Which was my only point. 

One question I would be asking myself using the profile method is what protections do you have if today someone clicks that button giving you permission to publish their posts elsewhere, you publish them next week, then the following week they click off that button and then you get a notice of a lawsuit from them and your only defense is that "You clicked a button in your profile that said it was okay." and all that person has to say is "No I didn't, it shows today that it says I opt out, it always said that." 

While you maybe able to prove your case with some sort of log files on your server, the problem is you have to prove your case, you're going to court to prove your innocence on a frivolous lawsuit, or what is more likely the case you are digging into your pocket to settle with some moron. Part of the reason that other sites use a blanket approach in their TOS, in order to post you have to opt in.

Regardless Nathan, whatever you do is always up to you, I'm just your humble servant offering you alternatives and another view point. I love the site and appreciate all you do.


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

Mike Finley said:


> *TOS*
> (2) *"Yes, you can include legal wording at your site indicating what happens to rights if people post material there... ...and you might want them to assign to you the non-exclusive right to reuse this material in other formats... You will see legal notices of that kind at some commercial sites, perhaps set up so that you have to click on a particular link to acknowledge that you agree to the terms before proceeding."*


Isn't this what I am doing now? Asking for permission? I guess I just don't know if adding it to a huge document is enough or if they have to actually see the question and respond to it.


Mike Finley said:


> Like I said, it's great if you want to operate on a more grass roots level of management of contractortalk.com, but let's not confuse what you *have *to do with what you *want *to do. Legally you have alternatives. Which was my only point.


Your right, I do just want to work it this way because I want people to know what we are doing since this is a "Community". But, I'm just getting specifics because it's an interesting topic and the question of liability for this subject does worry me sometimes. 
Also, I want to make sure I protect my website/content as much as possible.


Mike Finley said:


> One question I would be asking myself using the profile method is what protections do you have if today someone clicks that button giving you permission to publish their posts elsewhere, you publish them next week, then the following week they click off that button and then you get a notice of a lawsuit from them and your only defense is that "You clicked a button in your profile that said it was okay." and all that person has to say is "No I didn't, it shows today that it says I opt out, it always said that."
> 
> While you maybe able to prove your case with some sort of log files on your server, the problem is you have to prove your case, you're going to court to prove your innocence on a frivolous lawsuit, or what is more likely the case you are digging into your pocket to settle with some moron. Part of the reason that other sites use a blanket approach in their TOS, in order to post you have to opt in.


Couple of things on this. First, once again I am not publishing anything. I am only providing a framework as with everything on the site. It is the publishers responsibilty to make sure they are only printing what is allowed.
He will be taking screen shots and print outs of every thread with the print or don't print notification on it.
Also, this is a trial right now. Once we get users to fill in their info you will not be able to change your answer without requesting it to be changed through me.


Mike Finley said:


> Regardless Nathan, whatever you do is always up to you, I'm just your humble servant offering you alternatives and another view point. I love the site and appreciate all you do.


I really hope you know that I respect your opinion a great deal and hope I am not bothering you with this line of questions. I want to be smart about everything we do here. This website is fun for me but I hope one day it is a job for me to and I need to protect it in anyway possible. 

Thanks for your input!


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

Hey Guys, 

Could you proof read the question again here: *PROFILE* 

I changed it a bit. Since this has nothing to do with you giving up your copyright to the information and only giving the publisher the permission to reprint it... I changed the verbiage a bit.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,
Nathan


----------



## CGofMP (Feb 17, 2005)

Nathan said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> Could you proof read the question again here: *PROFILE*
> 
> ...


*From time to time ContractorTalk.com will work with industry trade magazines to reprint a limited number of posts in their magazines. Please indicate below if you would like to opt-in or opt-out of this program. (Recommended: Opt-In) 
[radio button] Opt-In: You may reprint my posts [radio button] Opt-Out: You man not reprint my posts 
*

Again, I am not a lawyer bla bla bla seek quallified advice from people with training bla bla bla...

I think I'd phrase it like so:
From time to time ContractorTalk.com *may* work with industry trade magazines to reprint a limited number of posts *from our forum participants* in their(remove) *these third party* magazines. *We respect the copyright of people posting to our site but we actively seek your permission to allow the re-printing of your articles.* Please indicate below if you would like to opt-in or opt-out of this program. 
------------

I would also bet that a slimy lawyer could be a phallus and make something of your 'reccomendation' to opt in. In addition I think I'd make your radio button DEFAULT to opt-out so that there is no question that people took a positive and direct action to opt-in. My conjecture is that taking a positive action (clicking opt IN) would be more legally binding and harder to talk ones way out of should there ever be a legal confrontation.

Also what do you do when neither opt-in or opt-out is selected? I forgot to test that. Does it come back as a required field and if not is the default selection displayed opt-out?


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

I don't think I need to default to opt-out. Right now nothing is selected and if forces you to make a decision.


----------



## slickshift (Jun 14, 2005)

Nathan said:


> I don't think I need to default to opt-out.


I know for a fact you don't


Nathan said:


> Right now nothing is selected and if forces you to make a decision


That is more than you _need_, and more considerate than most
I think that's a good way of doing it
:thumbsup:


----------



## Melissa (Feb 23, 2006)

I opted in, but it says "No" under my name....?


----------



## slickshift (Jun 14, 2005)

Melissa said:


> I opted in, but it says "No" under my name....?


Me too
I'll try again


----------



## slickshift (Jun 14, 2005)

I checked my profile, the proper box is checked
I saved it again just to be sure


----------



## Melissa (Feb 23, 2006)

So that must explain all the no's I've been seeing. I'll check the opt out box and see if it's just reversed, but Nathan's says yes, so I don't know.


----------



## Melissa (Feb 23, 2006)

test
Nope that didn't work either


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

Strange... I'll look into it and get it fixed tonight.


----------



## Nathan (Jul 21, 2003)

Fixed now I think?


----------



## Grumpy (Oct 8, 2003)

Nathan, question for you regarding copyrights and out posts. Therea re some informational posts that I have made, and you have reprinted some, such as "vinyl vs aluminum siding" and "fibercement vs cedar siding". I would hope that if these magazines decided to use those types of posts I would still get credit and maintain my copyrights. Yes? No?


----------

