CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online
log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Who owns the rights to forum posts?

Who owns the rights to forum posts?

Started by steelskipper5 · · 👁 8 views · 20 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants steelskipper5hiddenmoose16Steven Reedbriskjackal5goldengull3Patrick Miller3loneraven25amberdriver17Brenda Cook4Sandra Gonzalez3rustydrifter10Gary Sanchez88
steelskipper5 steelskipper5 Active MemberOP
176 messages
joined Feb 2010
#1 ·
Henry Hernandez7 said:So what you're saying is someone can just hop onto this or any other Reddit thread and drop a death threat like "I'm gonna kill this guy," and then just shrug their shoulders when they get hauled into court!?

Look, you didn't ask me, but since I've actually had to report people on another Reddit thread because of threats, I can tell you—the police will find whoever made the threat pretty damn fast. They'll have their name, address, and probably even what they had for breakfast.

But yeah, good point about the anonymity part. 😁
hiddenmoose16 hiddenmoose16 Newcomer
8 messages
joined Aug 2012
#2 ·
Does anyone know of any legal precedents—like an actual final court ruling—that would support the idea that we retain sole ownership of our own posts?

I have a feeling this would just turn into a massive legal mess where it basically becomes a battle of which lawyer has the deeper pockets.😁
Steven Reed Steven Reed Regular
354 messages
joined Dec 2014
#3 ·
Someone should shoot Wojko a DM with the link to this thread—I’m certain we'll finally get some answers here.
I recall a reporter once trying to publish quotes from the board without permission, actually asking the users—the original authors—for their consent first 🤷
briskjackal5 briskjackal5 Active Member
249 messages
joined Feb 2018
#4 ·
Elizabeth Anderson63 said:Hey, maybe someone could just shoot Vojko a private message with the link to this thread.

And hey, can somebody let Anasib know she’s totally allowed to send PMs too? haha

😁

-Stipe
Steven Reed Steven Reed Regular
354 messages
joined Dec 2014
#5 ·
briskjackal5 said:Someone please remind Steven Reed that she’s perfectly capable of sending a PM herself.

😁

-Stipe

🤣🤣
I realize I didn't frame this as an actual question—my bad—but I was essentially wondering if anyone had reached out to Vojko via PM yet. Anyway, here goes 🤣
goldengull3 goldengull3 Regular
260 messages
joined Nov 2007
#6 ·
You make it sound far too simple. We are dealing with an original work—heaven help us—penned by an author writing under a pseudonym.
Patrick Miller3 Patrick Miller3 Member
22 messages
joined Jan 2012
#7 ·
steelskipper5 said:If I claim I wrote them, the burden of proof lies with someone else to prove otherwise.

Honestly, you aren't even relevant here—courts don't waste their time on trivialities like this.🤣

lastan said:I don't even need to be present. An original work is protected simply by the act of publication. Period.

That isn't true.
For instance, I have about twenty musical compositions registered with Sony Music; if I want them officially recognized as "original works," I have to submit a CD of the recording, the basic sheet music, and fill out the proper paperwork.
If I write a killer rock song and just upload it to YouTube, for example, without registering it with Sony Music, I have zero legal standing to sue if someone else records my song and makes money off it.

That's my experience, and that is how the law actually works.

amberdriver17 said:If someone publishes one of my posts from this forum without asking me (like a newspaper or something), do I have the right to sue and seek compensation?

Probably—if you were, say, a scientist quoting your own research paper or an excerpt from a published work.
Otherwise, no; courts don't bother with trifles from an online forum—regardless of what the ego-trippers on here might think regarding the "cultural or historical value" of their posts. ☕

Kate Ward16 said:Exactly—to publish anyone's post, which is essentially someone's opinion, you must obtain permission from the author themselves. Doing so without consent is plagiarism and theft. Additionally, you are required to credit the source of the thought, or at least where it was taken from, once permission is granted.

Pointless and insignificant.
I explained it above. I'm not even sure why I was quoting you in the first place.
goldengull3 goldengull3 Regular
260 messages
joined Nov 2007
#8 ·
Foyum Rvacka As follows:
Honestly, you aren't even a factor in this entire situation. The court doesn't waste its time on trivialities like this. 🤣

You are mistaken. Unlike a Roman judge, a modern American judge lacks the discretion to decline a case, regardless of how trivial the dispute might seem. American judicial practice is such that you can find the courts even adjudicating matters as absurd as a dispute over a single chicken.

Foyum Rvacka As stated by:
That isn't accurate.
I have approximately twenty musical compositions registered with BMI. If I ever intend to officially establish them as "original works," I am required to submit a CD of the recording, the fundamental sheet music, and complete a formal application.
If I happen to craft a top-tier rock track and upload it to YouTube without having registered it with BMI, am I essentially powerless? It seems to me that if someone else films a video using my song and starts raking in the cash, I wouldn't have any legal standing to file a lawsuit or claim what’s rightfully mine.

Registering with BMI serves a practical purpose: it helps authors collect their royalties and provides a clearer paper trail to prove they actually created the work. That said, copyright exists from the moment a piece is created, encompassing everything from moral rights to the right of reproduction. There was once a significant debate regarding whether protection systems were beginning to converge, particularly in the USA. The American system developed its own distinct approach to copyright, which operates quite differently from the civil law traditions found elsewhere.

Patrick Miller3 said:I have firsthand experience with this matter, and I can confirm it has been settled according to American judicial practice.

That couldn't be further from the truth. The law is perfectly clear: I have been reviewing the legal framework regarding copyright and related rights, specifically looking at the statutes governing how intellectual property is protected under American law. It is a dense, often exhausting read, much like navigating the labyrinthine bureaucracy of the IRS or trying to decipher a complex tax code during audit season. The intricacies of how creators maintain control over their work—and how that control is eroded by various interpretations of fair use—is a subject that demands a certain level of stoicism. One cannot simply skim through these regulations; one must endure them. It serves as a sobering reminder of how much of our creative output is subject to the shifting sands of judicial interpretation and legislative whims.

Foyum Rvacka As specified by:
It is highly probable that if you happen to be a scientist, you will find yourself citing your own research, perhaps quoting an excerpt from one of your previously published papers or a specific finding from your own body of work.
The courts don't waste their time entertaining the trivialities posted on internet forums. Regardless of what those ego-driven posters here might believe, their little diatribes possess absolutely no cultural or historical significance. ☕

Ultimately, if this proceeds to litigation, the court—potentially supported by expert testimony—will be the one to determine the actual value of the entry and the resulting damages.
goldengull3 goldengull3 Regular
260 messages
joined Nov 2007
#9 ·
steelskipper5 said:If I claim I wrote them, then it’s on someone else to prove otherwise.

Regarding this thread—it’s an interesting thought. I happen to be reading through the Berne Convention at the moment, and if we were to classify Reddit as an electronic publication, then the platform itself would technically have the right to protect authors' posts under pseudonyms, even when those authors remain anonymous.

Article 15.

Under the terms of the Berne Convention, authors of literary and artistic works are presumed to be the rightful owners of their work unless proven otherwise. This presumption grants them the standing necessary to file lawsuits in any Union court against those infringing upon their rights, provided their identity is clearly indicated on the work in the customary manner. This provision extends to pseudonyms as well, so long as the chosen pen name leaves no doubt regarding the author's true identity.

Under the current legal framework, the producer of a motion picture is presumed to be the physical or legal entity whose name appears on the work in the customary manner, unless proven otherwise.

Regarding anonymous or pseudonymous works that don't fall under the specific categories mentioned in the first section: unless there's evidence to the contrary, the publisher listed on the work is legally presumed to be the representative of the author. In this capacity, they are authorized to defend and enforce the copyright. However, this provision loses its effect the moment the actual author steps forward, reveals their identity, and provides proof of authorship.

I’ve been digging through some legal documentation regarding the Berne Convention lately. It’s one of those dense, bureaucratic deep dives that most people would rather avoid, but if you want to actually understand how intellectual property rights function on an international scale, you have to face the paperwork. It lays out the fundamental framework for copyright protection, ensuring that creative works aren't just snatched up without consequence once they cross state lines. It's a heavy read, certainly, but essential for anyone serious about the legalities of ownership in the modern era.
goldengull3 goldengull3 Regular
260 messages
joined Nov 2007
#10 ·
amberdriver17 said:If someone decides to publish my posts from this site without asking me first—say, a news outlet or something similar—do I actually have grounds for a lawsuit and financial damages?

Technically, yes, provided they aren't just using standard fair use citations.
loneraven25 loneraven25 Active Member
77 messages
joined Jul 2013
#11 ·
...kind of like when someone uses their signature to go ahead and without any permission rip off a piece of another user's post..?
goldengull3 goldengull3 Regular
260 messages
joined Nov 2007
#12 ·
loneraven25 said:...it’s somewhat akin to a user signature, where someone might without permission lift a fragment of an author's post and claim it as their own..?

Precisely. 🙂

For clarity, here are a few examples regarding standard internet forum citation rules, which would imply placing the username under the author heading on our platform: http://www.eslweb.org/resources/index.php?topic=256.0
amberdriver17 amberdriver17 Member
10 messages
joined May 2012
#13 ·
goldengull3 said:You guys make it sound way too easy. It’s an actual work of authorship—believe it or not—written under a pen name.

goldengull3 said:Yeah, unless it’s just some cliché quote—which happens all the time.

Say a newspaper decides to run someone’s entire post—like a full narrative piece or a deep dive critique of some current event—and they clearly credit the author and the source. Does the paper still need to ask for permission if the author demands it? And if they do, do they have to pay up? If the outlet skips the permission part entirely, can the author actually sue for damages? If so, how much are we talking about? What even determines the payout?
So, does getting published in print and online actually net you two separate royalties?
goldengull3 goldengull3 Regular
260 messages
joined Nov 2007
#14 ·
amberdriver17 said:Let’s say a newspaper decides to reprint someone's entire post—something written as a narrative, like a personal account or a critique of current events—and they clearly state where it came from and who wrote it. Are they still obligated to ask for permission if the author requests it, and are they required to pay? Furthermore, if they skip the permission process entirely, can the author sue for damages, and how would a court determine the payout amount?

Yes, they absolutely have to get authorization from the author to publish a full text and agree to whatever terms the author sets, unless we are talking about matters of significant public interest—for instance, providing live updates during a news report on a devastating forest fire. Even in those cases, the author must be credited.

Any potential damages (since a court might also mandate a public apology) depend entirely on the assessment of the harm caused.

amberdriver17 said:And does publishing both in print and online entitle one to two separate sets of damages?

Obviously, yes. You are reaching two different audiences.
Brenda Cook4 Brenda Cook4 Regular
373 messages
joined Sep 2010
#15 ·
goldengull3 said:Looking at this topic—it’s actually pretty fascinating. I’m currently diving into the Berne Convention, and it got me thinking. If we were to view a site like Reddit as an electronic publication, then the platform itself would technically have the right to protect authors' posts under a pseudonym, even if those authors aren't widely known figures.

Article 15.

Under the Berne Convention, there’s a pretty straightforward rule for creators: if you want to be legally recognized as the owner of your literary or artistic work—and more importantly, have the standing to sue anyone infringing on those rights in any EU court—you just need to make sure your name is clearly attached to the piece in the usual way. This applies even if you’re working under a pen name, provided that pseudonym is unmistakable and leaves no doubt about who you actually are. It’s like having a verified badge on social media; it establishes your identity so the law can protect you.

Think of it this way: unless there's some specific legal proof to the contrary, the person or company whose name is credited on a film is officially considered the producer. It’s pretty straightforward—if their name is up there on the screen during the credits, they're the ones holding the title.

When you’re dealing with anonymous works or those where the author uses a pseudonym—and they don't fall under that first category we just talked about—the publisher listed on the work is essentially treated as the face of the author. Unless there’s some solid evidence to the contrary, the publisher steps into that role, holding the reins to protect and enforce all those copyright interests. It’s a bit like how a major studio might represent a creator's rights behind the scenes. Of course, this whole setup changes the second the author decides to step out from behind the curtain, reveals their true identity, and provides the proof to back it up. At that point, the publisher's proxy status ends.

Check out this PDF link regarding the Berne Convention. It’s a deep dive into the legal framework governing copyright and intellectual property rights. For anyone interested in how creative works are protected internationally, this is pretty essential reading.

To be honest, there isn’t really any legal precedent here yet—not even in common law systems, as far as I know—when it comes to protecting the copyright of posts made on internet forums.

Like I mentioned before, copyright is actually acquired automatically. The general rule is that the copyright holder is the individual—the person behind the screen—who originally created the work. However, when we’re talking about forum posts, we should probably look at it through the lens of a publisher, much like how a newspaper operates. It really comes down to two distinct sides of the coin: first, there’s the moral right, which stays with the author forever and can't be signed away; then, there’s the economic right, which is transferable. By agreeing to the site's terms of service, a user is essentially granting the platform permission to use their content. Think about it—the forum needs the right to edit, move, or even delete a post. If that weren't the case, a post owner could swoop in at any moment and demand everything be wiped clean, which would basically turn the whole thing into a legal nightmare similar to a strict copyright lawsuit.

I recall some user on a subreddit asking to have a huge chunk of her old posts deleted—I think it was all her poetry or something along those lines. If we’re looking at this through a legal lens, you could argue that the platform itself acts as a sort of holder for those copyrights (though we shouldn't confuse that with being liable for what's actually written there). Still, it remains to be seen if we’ll ever see actual legal precedents established around this issue... as if we needed any more headaches.😁
Patrick Miller3 Patrick Miller3 Member
22 messages
joined Jan 2012
#16 ·
goldengull3 said:Registering with ASCAP exists to ensure authors receive their royalties—and to make proving ownership much simpler.

It isn't just about making proof "simpler"—it’s about providing absolute proof.

Vojko said:That said, copyright is established the moment a work is created, which includes reproduction rights. The question of registration was historically vital in the USA—which developed its own Copyright system, distinct from the continental European model of protection.

On paper, that is legally true—but you probably haven't drafted these types of legal filings or handled these specific cases, so you might not be fully acquainted with how musicians actually protect their work.

If I upload a full music video featuring a song titled, say, "my future" to YouTube, I am—legally speaking—the owner and author. However, we have already discussed what "registration" actually accomplishes and the steps required to make that musical work truly valid.

If I don't register that composition with ASCAP, someone like Miro Buljan could walk in tomorrow (please, sir, don't take offense or sue me for mentioning this in a post 🤣 ) from Tonio Cetinski's crew, completely rip off the melody, lyrics, and arrangement, and I would find myself standing in court with absolutely NO way to prove I created it.

Who came up with the composition first?
How can I prove authorship if I haven't registered it with ASCAP?

In that scenario, all those legal regulations on paper fall apart. ☕ (Theory is one thing; practice is quite another.)

I could even end up being sued by them, claiming that *I* was the one who stole it from them. 😂
Patrick Miller3 Patrick Miller3 Member
22 messages
joined Jan 2012
#17 ·
loneraven25 said:...it’s kind of like when someone puts a snippet of another user's post in their signature without permission?

If I recall correctly—and it's been a long time—this is actually covered by the forum rules.
It is perfectly fine to use a quote in a signature, provided the original author doesn't object. If they do, the user who used the quote is expected to remove it—otherwise, the site admins will step in and handle it.
Sandra Gonzalez3 Sandra Gonzalez3 Active Member
105 messages
joined Oct 2008
#18 ·
Patrick Miller3 said:As I recall, this was settled by the site rules ages ago.
You can put someone else's quote in your signature, unless the person who said it wants you to stop. If they don't like it, the user has to scrub it, or the mods will just step in and do it themselves.

Not even close. As far as I know, there aren't even any rules about this on the board. Right now, anyone can slap anyone else's quote in their signature without asking permission... nothing stops them.
rustydrifter10 rustydrifter10 Regular
693 messages
joined Apr 2011
#19 ·
Kevin Williams56 said:Well, I wouldn't say that's exactly how it works. From what I can gather, there aren't actually any specific forum rules governing this at all right now, so we're basically in a bit of a free-for-all where anyone can go ahead and quote whatever another user says without needing to ask for permission first.

You really have to make sure you mention exactly who you're quoting, though!
Gary Sanchez88 Gary Sanchez88 Newcomer
3 messages
joined Jul 2012
#20 ·
Brenda Cook4 said:we gotta split this into two parts: first, there's the moral rights of an author, which stays with them forever and you can't just hand those off, and then there's the economic rights, which are totally transferable and can be sold

1. honestly, I don't give a damn about moral rights. morality is basically a myth anyway—just some abstract concept floating around out there...
2. plus, it's pretty easy to just tweak someone else's words until they look different enough

This forum is actually a goldmine for inspiration and finding stuff to write about. I've noticed certain news sites and blogs rip off threads and articles from here almost immediately after they pop up—whether it's history, science, or even conspiracy junk—and nobody ever says a word... so why should I stress out or lose sleep if I just borrow a few thoughts? It’s way too easy to make a quick buck or churn out a paper when you've got places like this where people just dump their ideas and do all the heavy lifting for you.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads