Content re-use: proposed rules

Make suggestions and report problems.
User avatar
DRT
Fonseca 1966
Posts: 15261
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007
Location: Chesterfield, UK
Contact:

Post by DRT » 00:09 Tue 06 May 2008

Conky wrote:I personally would be snoring!

Was that any help?
I think that is exactly what I have been saying :wink:
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn

User avatar
SushiNorth
Martinez 1985
Posts: 1262
Joined: 07:45 Mon 18 Feb 2008
Location: NJ & NY

Post by SushiNorth » 04:22 Tue 06 May 2008

Derek T. wrote:If any member here chooses to make a statement that sets out the terms under which their content can be used by others then, in my view, that is for them to do themselves.
K.
Derek T. wrote: Let's pretend for one moment that it was SushiNorth or Jdaw1 who had started the Cockburn Vertical thread on TPF and I had posted but not attributed their words on FTLOP. What would be happening now?
Very little, i don't read closed forums.

SushiNorth
Image Port wine should perhaps be added -- A Trollope

User avatar
AHB
Quinta do Noval Nacional 1962
Posts: 11947
Joined: 13:41 Mon 25 Jun 2007
Location: Berkshire, UK

Post by AHB » 12:16 Thu 08 May 2008

Sushi has just done what I was going to suggest.

I'm not sure that we would ever be able to herd the cats on this forum into a single agreed position. None of seem to disagree with the idea that folks who want to protect their content, should be able to do so but we don't seem to be convinced that this is best achieved by having a site policy.

So is it not better to do as Sushi North has just done - to include in your footer the terms and conditions by which you agree that your contribution can be reproduced?

Alex
Top Ports in 2018 (so far): Niepoort VV (1960's Bottling), Quinta do Noval Nacional 1994 and San Leonardo Very Old White (Bottled 2018)
2017 Ports of the year: Fonseca 1927 and Quinta do Noval 1927

User avatar
jdaw1
Cockburn 1900
Posts: 20588
Joined: 15:03 Thu 21 Jun 2007
Location: London
Contact:

Which is why a — common sense — policy would be better.

Post by jdaw1 » 18:01 Thu 08 May 2008

AHB wrote:to include in your footer the terms and conditions by which you agree that your contribution can be reproduced?
Just like a moving avatar: a distraction from the thread of conversation. Which is why a — common sense — policy would be better.

Conky
Fonseca 1980
Posts: 1770
Joined: 23:51 Wed 20 Jun 2007

Re: Which is why a — common sense — policy would be better.

Post by Conky » 23:07 Thu 08 May 2008

jdaw1 wrote:
AHB wrote:to include in your footer the terms and conditions by which you agree that your contribution can be reproduced?
Just like a moving avatar: a distraction from the thread of conversation. Which is why a — common sense — policy would be better.
So get on with it. Put a proposal forward, show an example, and await the verdict. We'll do the old Democratic thing. It usually works very well.

Alan

Post Reply