answered question
5
Votes
Votes
6
Answers
Answers
M$1.00
Do you think questions asked in public copyrightable? Are people allowed to answer questions asked publicly?
voted interesting: buddawiggi, easyeboy, christhomson, stanar, nyssa
|
Report
answers (6)
I think we're starting to take ownership for things we don't really own these days. A question is simply that, just a question. Let's worry about answering the question in a timely and concise manner before we decide on who "owns" anything.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, jeffhoard
Agreed.
Tip onek for this comment
|
Report
I saw this mentioned in Techmeme and I find the discussion a bit silly to be honest. We should focus on people getting the answers they need, and not debating who owns the questions. This really diverts away from the user-centric approach that should be in the minds of the owners of such sites.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, easyeboy
Here is the link to original discussion. Ben Finkel ( http://www.fluther.com/ ) accuses @jasoncalacanis of stealing content ( = tweets) from fluther.
http://blog.fluther.com/blog/2009/06/01/an-open-letter-to-jason-calacanis/
http://blog.fluther.com/blog/2009/06/01/an-open-letter-to-jason-calacanis/
Without asking for any specific legal council on this, I think that Mahalo has got it right.
1)
A lot of thought has been given to the ownership of answers. Here is my understanding of them:
When I answer a question I respond with my own experiences, work, knowledge and research. In much the same way that I own a publicly submitted periodical article, an answer is the work of the author and no one else.
The exception and "grey area" here is one of the things that makes Mahalo Answers great, the payouts. If someone contributes an article to a magazine, newspaper, blog, etc and is paid for that submission, then the author is released of his or her ownership. This is usually completed in an official (but standard) release form.
Here on Mahalo Answers however, users are given Tips. From my understanding of the system here, these aren't payments for answers but rather tips that are provided by the person asking the question to garner responses and say thank-you to the person with the "best" answer.
There is a grey line that could be argued through ownership. However, Mahalo takes care of this in their Terms Of Service by stating that authors own their work.
"You own your Content. We claim no intellectual property rights over the Content you provide to the Services through your Mahalo Account. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. "
http://www.mahalo.com/Terms_of_Service
Ownership is not transferred or gained through public display. This is fundamental copyright law and a cornerstone of the Internet, not just Mahalo Answers.
2)
Questions are content.
My view on the ownership of answers transfers seamlessly to the questions that are asked. I suspect that this was created by design as the statement "You own the Content" is generic and nonspecific. Questions are nothing more than content as viewed through the Terms of Service and my understanding of copyright law. Questions are the responsibility of the user and the content is owned by the user.
0)
To review, questions and answers are both user submitted content. Mahalo Answers currently takes now ownership of this content.
There are however several grey areas that could be interpreted in unique ways.
Generally, I think that when someone asks a question in a public system privacy is abandoned. People should be aware that those without high moral standards can (and do) steal content from this and other public sites.
However, as worldwide social networks come to age, users are presented with an increasing number of opportunities to disclose personal information. This is leading to a significant shift in our culture where anonymity and privacy are either discarded or carefully guarded.
1)
A lot of thought has been given to the ownership of answers. Here is my understanding of them:
When I answer a question I respond with my own experiences, work, knowledge and research. In much the same way that I own a publicly submitted periodical article, an answer is the work of the author and no one else.
The exception and "grey area" here is one of the things that makes Mahalo Answers great, the payouts. If someone contributes an article to a magazine, newspaper, blog, etc and is paid for that submission, then the author is released of his or her ownership. This is usually completed in an official (but standard) release form.
Here on Mahalo Answers however, users are given Tips. From my understanding of the system here, these aren't payments for answers but rather tips that are provided by the person asking the question to garner responses and say thank-you to the person with the "best" answer.
There is a grey line that could be argued through ownership. However, Mahalo takes care of this in their Terms Of Service by stating that authors own their work.
"You own your Content. We claim no intellectual property rights over the Content you provide to the Services through your Mahalo Account. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. "
http://www.mahalo.com/Terms_of_Service
Ownership is not transferred or gained through public display. This is fundamental copyright law and a cornerstone of the Internet, not just Mahalo Answers.
2)
Questions are content.
My view on the ownership of answers transfers seamlessly to the questions that are asked. I suspect that this was created by design as the statement "You own the Content" is generic and nonspecific. Questions are nothing more than content as viewed through the Terms of Service and my understanding of copyright law. Questions are the responsibility of the user and the content is owned by the user.
0)
To review, questions and answers are both user submitted content. Mahalo Answers currently takes now ownership of this content.
There are however several grey areas that could be interpreted in unique ways.
Generally, I think that when someone asks a question in a public system privacy is abandoned. People should be aware that those without high moral standards can (and do) steal content from this and other public sites.
However, as worldwide social networks come to age, users are presented with an increasing number of opportunities to disclose personal information. This is leading to a significant shift in our culture where anonymity and privacy are either discarded or carefully guarded.
voted helpful: buddawiggi, nushka, philipy, easyeboy, jeffhoard, christhomson
Voted as best: geniusofhardwork, buddawiggi
I think questions asked here can certainly be thought of as content, and therefore copyrightable. While there are plenty of very simple questions, there are also longer, carefully worded questions.
I suppose there might be an area where the wording of the question is so obvious as to not qualify as unique content, but where that line gets drawn is really going to depend on case law.
With the case of Twitter questions asked to the world at large, there's also an element that copying the question is like quoting a portion of an email in your reply to that email.
I suppose there might be an area where the wording of the question is so obvious as to not qualify as unique content, but where that line gets drawn is really going to depend on case law.
With the case of Twitter questions asked to the world at large, there's also an element that copying the question is like quoting a portion of an email in your reply to that email.
Well said @robbrown, and we are seeing a sociological transformation here, yet how about the answerers below you who may never be tipped for answer? What about the answerer who puts in the effort? These people are not getting paid, yet sometimes they provide good and original content to their answers. I believe it's safe to say, as time goes on that it's harder to find original answers for some questions that are simple, yet the good part about Mahalo Answers is that provides us with the ability to upload a picture or a video, which will in turn add more originality to answers. It would be nice if Mahalo allowed us to add our own videos in the site, without having to upload elsewhere. Mahalo could easily implement something like a Viddler video comment plugin.
@easyeboy : "how about the answerers below you who may never be tipped for answer?"
I think that this scenario makes the grey line even thicker. When is a user "paid"? Is it when I earn a single tip or is it when I actually cash out? Many would say that the money is not real until it is withdrawn. While I may agree with that (and Mahalo certainly does in the TOS), it could be argued that someone pays for a tip when they fund the question. While M$'s are not a currency, they hold value.
I honestly never see this being a real issue. I care about someone stealing the answers (and maybe even questions) that I contribute. I feel that the folks who run and maintain the system here are "stand-up" enough to recognize these issues. While I wouldn't expect them to stand behind me in any sort of argument or battle about copyright, I think that they have the my best interests as an active contributor in mind.
I think that this scenario makes the grey line even thicker. When is a user "paid"? Is it when I earn a single tip or is it when I actually cash out? Many would say that the money is not real until it is withdrawn. While I may agree with that (and Mahalo certainly does in the TOS), it could be argued that someone pays for a tip when they fund the question. While M$'s are not a currency, they hold value.
I honestly never see this being a real issue. I care about someone stealing the answers (and maybe even questions) that I contribute. I feel that the folks who run and maintain the system here are "stand-up" enough to recognize these issues. While I wouldn't expect them to stand behind me in any sort of argument or battle about copyright, I think that they have the my best interests as an active contributor in mind.
One of the comments on the post over at Fluther makes an interesting analogy:
-- Quote
....how is this any different from a blog post getting posted to Digg/Reddit/HN? It usually isn’t the author that submits a post to a social news site. So, a third party posts the title and a snippet of the post to a social news site. That site then accumulates comments about the post, instead of the author’s site. Somewhat similar to how this post has accumulated comments both here and at hacker news.
-- /Quote
http://blog.fluther.com/blog/2009/06/01/an-open-letter-to-jason-calacanis/
And look what I just did with that guy's comment! I copied and pasted maybe 15% of his posting. Would be unacceptable if that were a book, but if we're going to have a web full of discussions, hard to avoid that kind of thing.
Attribution could be important here though, and at least Mahalo does always attribute to the original Tweeter.
-- Quote
....how is this any different from a blog post getting posted to Digg/Reddit/HN? It usually isn’t the author that submits a post to a social news site. So, a third party posts the title and a snippet of the post to a social news site. That site then accumulates comments about the post, instead of the author’s site. Somewhat similar to how this post has accumulated comments both here and at hacker news.
-- /Quote
http://blog.fluther.com/blog/2009/06/01/an-open-letter-to-jason-calacanis/
And look what I just did with that guy's comment! I copied and pasted maybe 15% of his posting. Would be unacceptable if that were a book, but if we're going to have a web full of discussions, hard to avoid that kind of thing.
Attribution could be important here though, and at least Mahalo does always attribute to the original Tweeter.
I just had a look at the Fluther blog post and skimmed through the comments.
One of the most effective ways to get free traffic is by creating a "war". Internet users are drawn to controversy and drama.
So, it seems to me that Ben (of Fluther) may simply be looking for traffic. Timing a controversy like this with the release of Mahalo2 would have several advantages.
The argument of "stealing" content from twitter is innane. Twitter is an open space where people (and now machines) communicate in public. If Flufer put their question up on Twitter, it will be redistributed. That is the nature of Twitter.
While attribution is key, how much attributable one needs to display is up for debate. It looks like Mahalo Answers did attribute Fluffer by linking to their username and directly to their Twitter page where the question came from.
But again... I think that Ben may have made this whole thing up in the hope of gaining exposure and traffic.
One of the most effective ways to get free traffic is by creating a "war". Internet users are drawn to controversy and drama.
So, it seems to me that Ben (of Fluther) may simply be looking for traffic. Timing a controversy like this with the release of Mahalo2 would have several advantages.
The argument of "stealing" content from twitter is innane. Twitter is an open space where people (and now machines) communicate in public. If Flufer put their question up on Twitter, it will be redistributed. That is the nature of Twitter.
While attribution is key, how much attributable one needs to display is up for debate. It looks like Mahalo Answers did attribute Fluffer by linking to their username and directly to their Twitter page where the question came from.
But again... I think that Ben may have made this whole thing up in the hope of gaining exposure and traffic.
"What are Copyrightable works?
Anything that fits into one of these eight categories is copyrightable works:
1) literary works (not limited to literature)
2) musical works
3) dramatic works
4) pantomimes and choreographic works
5) pictorial, graphics, and sculptural works
6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7) sound recordings and
8) architectural works
These apparent narrow classifications are in fact interpreted very broadly and cover pretty much anything the human creative intellect can come up with. For instance computer programs fall under the category of “literary works” and can be registered with the copyright office.
What cannot be protected by copyright?
According to section 102 of Title 17 copyright protection does not extend to ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries, regardless of the form in which they are described, explained, illustrated, or embodied.
In other words facts, ideas and slogans cannot be copyrighted; only the expression of ideas. A live performance such as a lecture or a sermon or a concert cannot be copyrighted. The video tape or audio tape of the concert is copyrighted as is a transcript of a lecture or sermon.
The quality of a work, its aesthetics, similarity to another work and even the amount of effort (or lack thereof) put into creating a work is irrelevant to copyright protection. Copyright rewards originality, not effort.
A good example of similarity is the oft told tale of forbidden love. It has been retold over and over again in a variety of scenarios as in Romeo & Juliet vis-à-vis West Side Story. The theme is not copyrightable but the details reinvented with each new telling are.
A good example of effort viz a viz creativity is a telephone book. A telephone book takes a great deal of effort to create but cannot be copyrighted because it is only a list of facts - names, addresses and phone numers. On the other hand a subject arrangement of those same facts are copyrighted because there exists some creativity -- minute though it may be -- in the development of a subject listing of names, address and phone numbers."
--masters.edu
I think a question is considered an idea. So no, questions asked in public are not copyrightable and people are allowed to answer questions publicly.
Anything that fits into one of these eight categories is copyrightable works:
1) literary works (not limited to literature)
2) musical works
3) dramatic works
4) pantomimes and choreographic works
5) pictorial, graphics, and sculptural works
6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7) sound recordings and
8) architectural works
These apparent narrow classifications are in fact interpreted very broadly and cover pretty much anything the human creative intellect can come up with. For instance computer programs fall under the category of “literary works” and can be registered with the copyright office.
What cannot be protected by copyright?
According to section 102 of Title 17 copyright protection does not extend to ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries, regardless of the form in which they are described, explained, illustrated, or embodied.
In other words facts, ideas and slogans cannot be copyrighted; only the expression of ideas. A live performance such as a lecture or a sermon or a concert cannot be copyrighted. The video tape or audio tape of the concert is copyrighted as is a transcript of a lecture or sermon.
The quality of a work, its aesthetics, similarity to another work and even the amount of effort (or lack thereof) put into creating a work is irrelevant to copyright protection. Copyright rewards originality, not effort.
A good example of similarity is the oft told tale of forbidden love. It has been retold over and over again in a variety of scenarios as in Romeo & Juliet vis-à-vis West Side Story. The theme is not copyrightable but the details reinvented with each new telling are.
A good example of effort viz a viz creativity is a telephone book. A telephone book takes a great deal of effort to create but cannot be copyrighted because it is only a list of facts - names, addresses and phone numers. On the other hand a subject arrangement of those same facts are copyrighted because there exists some creativity -- minute though it may be -- in the development of a subject listing of names, address and phone numbers."
--masters.edu
I think a question is considered an idea. So no, questions asked in public are not copyrightable and people are allowed to answer questions publicly.
voted helpful: nushka, whiskeybravo, morriss003, stanar
Anything creative and put into a fixed medium is technically copyrightable, however that doesn't mean that just because you made it up and wrote it down somewhere that you can claim copyright infringement.
To be able to claim copyright of a work, it must be first in a fixed medium (as in you can speak it but it has to be recorded, your friend can't just attest to you having said it) and then must be able to fulfill the following criteria (or a combination of the important ones).
A copyrightable work must fulfill these criteria:
So yes, you may be able to claim that you could copyright a question on mahalo but really, you can't protect it because it's not going to be that original, and you don't have any case for infringement. And is there really any point in having copyright for anything if you are not going to be able to protect it? No, none whatsoever.
In fact the line of thinking that copyright means you have complete ownership and protection of the work is a problem that is running rampant. If you don't stand to profit from your fixed work, then you really don't need copyright over it. And if you do stand to profit you should not be granted a complete and endless monopoly over that work because the goal of copyright was to compensate you for your effort, not give you supreme reign over your contribution to society.
To be able to claim copyright of a work, it must be first in a fixed medium (as in you can speak it but it has to be recorded, your friend can't just attest to you having said it) and then must be able to fulfill the following criteria (or a combination of the important ones).
A copyrightable work must fulfill these criteria:
- Arrangement: consideration of how the contents of the work are displayed because layout and design are copyrightable. Additionally this is a very thin argument and doesn't stand on it's own. Since we have no control over layout and design in mahalo you can't claim it.
- Coordination: selection on how the information or items are organized to make it useful. This is also a thin argument and isn't fulfilled by the options allowed in mahalo for posting a question.
- Selection: a creative decision on what will or will not be included. While you can argue that there are hundreds of questions that you didn't post but could have, I'm still going to argue that because you are not compiling anything and being selective about it this isn't fulfilled by the mahalo answers design.
- Content: the creative effort making up the bulk of the work. You may be able to make the argument that all of your question is from a creative effort, and you may be right. But a question is not "bulky" enough in and of itself to be fulfill this criteria.
So yes, you may be able to claim that you could copyright a question on mahalo but really, you can't protect it because it's not going to be that original, and you don't have any case for infringement. And is there really any point in having copyright for anything if you are not going to be able to protect it? No, none whatsoever.
In fact the line of thinking that copyright means you have complete ownership and protection of the work is a problem that is running rampant. If you don't stand to profit from your fixed work, then you really don't need copyright over it. And if you do stand to profit you should not be granted a complete and endless monopoly over that work because the goal of copyright was to compensate you for your effort, not give you supreme reign over your contribution to society.
source(s):
many intellectual property courses.
many intellectual property courses.
voted helpful: stanar
Before getting into issues of what is copyrightable, it's important to distinguish between what's legal and what's ethical.
Right now there's a big scandal in the UK parliament because it has emerged many politicians have been claiming expenses for things the public finds unacceptable. One person living in a rather grand property claimed for the expense of having his moat cleaned!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5310069/MPs-expenses-Clearing-the-moat-at-Douglas-Hoggs-manor.html
The point here is that many of these claims were within the rules. In many cases the politicians even checked that their claim was allowable with the relevant authorities before filing it.
However the public thinks that kind of behaviour stinks, even if it is legal, and they are in deep trouble, being forced to repay money, facing losing their jobs etc.
Sometimes the court of public opinion is more important than courts of law.
So whether something is technically copyrightable may not the most important point here anyway.
Now, onto the legal question: Can a question asked in public be copyrightable?
There's an excellent discussion by a lawyer who specialised in these fields here:
http://www.canyoucopyrightatweet.com/
A key passage is this:
-- Quote
But a key to copyright protection is the granting of a monopoly. That’s why the law is going to take very seriously any request to protect an arrangement of words. When copyright law protects the written word, it grants a limited monopoly over the arrangement of words, allowing the owner to prohibit others from writing the same thing in the same way.
-- /Quote
Whether the words we're looking at are a question, an answer or a poem are more or less irrelevant to the issue of copyrightability.
Ulimtately the courts would be asking: "Why the heck should we grant you exclusive right to use this particular arrangement of words?"
Now hypothetically, a question surely could qualify for such protection. Some possible scenarios that might meet the standard:
a) I'm a teacher, and I have made a problem sheet with some really stimulating questions that are great for getting students thinking and learning.
b) The question is particularly vivid and powerful, maybe poetic, like a Zen koan, or a haiku that asks a question.
So, yes a question asked in public could in principle be copyrightable.
But in practice, questions (esp on Twitter) will rarely rise to the level of originality that would qualify for protection.
And even if a question is copyrightable, I don't see how there can be a problem with answering it. The only problem you might have is with reproducing the question when answering it.
However different issues might arise if it was a matter of not taking one question, but a whole stream.
Ultimately, to get back to my first point, in these days of AIG bonuses etc, it's not only a question of what is legal, but what people would consider fair.
Right now there's a big scandal in the UK parliament because it has emerged many politicians have been claiming expenses for things the public finds unacceptable. One person living in a rather grand property claimed for the expense of having his moat cleaned!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5310069/MPs-expenses-Clearing-the-moat-at-Douglas-Hoggs-manor.html
The point here is that many of these claims were within the rules. In many cases the politicians even checked that their claim was allowable with the relevant authorities before filing it.
However the public thinks that kind of behaviour stinks, even if it is legal, and they are in deep trouble, being forced to repay money, facing losing their jobs etc.
Sometimes the court of public opinion is more important than courts of law.
So whether something is technically copyrightable may not the most important point here anyway.
Now, onto the legal question: Can a question asked in public be copyrightable?
There's an excellent discussion by a lawyer who specialised in these fields here:
http://www.canyoucopyrightatweet.com/
A key passage is this:
-- Quote
But a key to copyright protection is the granting of a monopoly. That’s why the law is going to take very seriously any request to protect an arrangement of words. When copyright law protects the written word, it grants a limited monopoly over the arrangement of words, allowing the owner to prohibit others from writing the same thing in the same way.
-- /Quote
Whether the words we're looking at are a question, an answer or a poem are more or less irrelevant to the issue of copyrightability.
Ulimtately the courts would be asking: "Why the heck should we grant you exclusive right to use this particular arrangement of words?"
Now hypothetically, a question surely could qualify for such protection. Some possible scenarios that might meet the standard:
a) I'm a teacher, and I have made a problem sheet with some really stimulating questions that are great for getting students thinking and learning.
b) The question is particularly vivid and powerful, maybe poetic, like a Zen koan, or a haiku that asks a question.
So, yes a question asked in public could in principle be copyrightable.
But in practice, questions (esp on Twitter) will rarely rise to the level of originality that would qualify for protection.
And even if a question is copyrightable, I don't see how there can be a problem with answering it. The only problem you might have is with reproducing the question when answering it.
However different issues might arise if it was a matter of not taking one question, but a whole stream.
Ultimately, to get back to my first point, in these days of AIG bonuses etc, it's not only a question of what is legal, but what people would consider fair.
voted helpful: stanar
Think throwing apples into a conversation about oranges is confusing. You're talking about politics and public (and media) whim in an economic downturn. There's little relevance to copyright. "Ethics" is a broad category, and is easily clouded by opinions of the moment, not necessarily on sound reasoning.
Opinion is what it's all about. Quite apart from whether you personally think something is fair, it matters what everyone else thinks.
It doesn't matter if what you did was legal if it turns people off your business.
It doesn't matter if what you did was legal if it turns people off your business.
Apple's "There is an app for that" and Donald Trump's You are fired" - are these copy rightable?
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
