hey Mr Faries!

[thomas7g]

I got a few questions about your new policies. I want to ask cause it sounds a little confusing.

We respect and are thankful for all you will give us. But do we need to sign up somewhere under some "program" to use your images?

Can we include your images in our gallery section? Or would just in forum use be it?

Also from what I understans, it looks like the way you worded it that by submitting to pegasus that what we give you to post on the net, that pegasus has some right over it that restricts the rights of the person who owns it. Cause it says we give, then the provider is allowed to post it. That sounds like pegasus is claiming some sort of ownership over the material. Me confused.

Thanks Michael.

[michaelfaries]

Hey Tom,

Let me know the specific wording that's confusing and I'll endeavor to clarify (and re-word, if necessary).

The primary goal of the Open Content Model and Creative Commons License is to allow others to republish content from the sites, like BattlestarPegasus.com -- and give credit where credit is due. If it originated at BP.com, then BP.com deserves credit as the source.

The Open Content Model is also designed to protect the works of whomever submitted/authored it. In other words, if Jane Doe writes an article and publishes it with us, no web site should ever grab that content and publish it as their own, sans proper crediting. I don't care if it's a transcription or an original work; that person deserves credit for their work on it -- and anyone republishing it needs to acknowledge it.

Submissions to BattlestarPegasus.com are not wholly owned by me, the owner of BattlestarPegasus.com, unless I create them myself (such as an article, interview, etc.). People can feel free to make submissions with the knowledge that they retain the rights to their work. (Another example: If someone submits a fan fiction, then manages to get it commercially published, I'm not going to be asking for a share of the $$; it's the author's work. I'm merely a host for the fan fiction which the author has permitted me to showcase.)

re: ownership. For example, Dave Kerin may opt to publish images with me. But they're HIS images which he's granted permission for me to host. I don't own them, although they're legally protected by the Open Content Model and Creative Commons License on my site, plus my legal notices.

In fact, an interesting example of content ownership happened last year. Don had asked me to pull down his Gallery section; the images didn't reflect the quality of his current work. (His images were outdated and he wanted them pulled.) 1.) Don had granted permission for me to post them on BP.com; 2.) Those Gallery images were his; and 3.) I pulled them down when he asked -- with no objections (although I really liked the artwork regardless & would have liked to keep it posted). Another example would be if John LaRocque says, "Michael, pull down my BG FAQs." I do so. 'Nuff said.

If John permits his FAQ to be republished (per the Open Content Model - which it isn't at present), I want to make sure -- absolutely sure -- that anyone who wants to republish it gives him (the author) credit, as well as the source (BattlestarPegasus.com).

If the file(s) resides on multiple web sites (ie. not just BP.com), then it's the author's call on how they want to be credited.

Note: Some things are off-limits. On Space1999.org, image republishing isn't an issue (unless the image contains the Space1999.org logo). On BattlestarPegasus.com, there might be some restrictions, if any of the artists don't wish to have their works distributed elsewhere. The final Open Content Model data will highlight this.

Michael
:colwar:

[thomas7g]

Dude! You are up too late

I'll look it over again and get back to you.

Sllleeeeeeeppp Mr Faries! Sleeeeeeeppppp!

[michaelfaries]

Sleep is for the weak! Sleep is...zzzzzzzzzzz

G'night!
M.

[thomas7g]

Thanks Darrell.

MF- Its just a weirdly worded line, in the SUBMITTING OPEN CONTENT part

All submissions will be considered for inclusion on Space1999.org, with permission granted to reprint on your own web site(s) or publication(s).

There is confusion cause above and below this line you are refering to "you" as the person who submits the material.

But why would I need space 1999 (or pegasus's) permission to reprint my art on whatever website I choose?

That's the weird part.

I know you didn't mean that. But read it carefully a few times. The way it's worded is odd.

[larocque6689]

I have been co-ordinating with Tom and Sandy (and less so with Darrell) with respect to the FAQ and other files. I would be happy to resubmit the entire Kobol archive including the FAQ to BSP.Com under the open content rules.

It took a while to unearth a few of the files. I actually lost them due the loss of my backup disc as well as Chris accidentally deleting his "Archives" section at Kobol.com. Actually, RDM complained about that in the chat. He recognized the FAQ as being the best resource on the net, so when the "Archives" section went down at Kobol.com, he couldn't read up on the classic show. Anyway, I forwared RDM through a third party a link to BSG.com where the FAQ currently lives. Whether he makes use of it is another issue, but at least he can't be accused of not having the information available.

Thanks to Jewels for forwarding me the files that I lost!

[thomas7g]

John- we are working on it. We have a weird problem with the links on the page. For soe reason it keep trying to leap to another site even though the link url isn't aimed anywhere else.

We are working on it. ANd trying hard to get it up before this month is over.

[jewels]

And I'm going to have a pile of docs to Sandy by the end of the weekend with any luck.

Jewels

[Micheleh]

The only thing I personally don't care for about the open content model- and this is why we would never touch it at Renderosity- is that the burden of protecting the rights for the content is on the site. I found it easier to advise the individual artict/author/whaever to include their own lisence agreement with downlaodable items. With published articles, copyright is automatic, they jsut need to be properly credited.

The author of he content can do it themselves, as well, by choosing to use the agreement as part of their submission.

"The Open Content Model is also designed to protect the works of whomever submitted/authored it. In other words, if Jane Doe writes an article and publishes it with us, no web site should ever grab that content and publish it as their own, sans proper crediting. I don't care if it's a transcription or an original work; that person deserves credit for their work on it -- and anyone republishing it needs to acknowledge it."

This protection is automatic upon authorship- copyright is assumed for any work as soon as it is authored, though I personally reccomend registration of that copyright to facilitate the process. An open content or other site lisence simply serves to increase the deterrence factor, but ultimately the burden of protection is on the author/ creator.

[Micheleh]

PS... I'm not implying in any way that this is a bad idea. I just advise against assuming responsibility for enforcing protections which the creator of the content is granted for and capable of getting for themselves.

It is also notoriously hard- say an article or model is taken from the site and misused- in a third party submission situation it is next to impossible to prove that the content originated from your site as opposed to another source, and the burden of proof will lie on the accuser, not the transgressor.

[michaelfaries]

For Michelle: I think you're right about that and I will likely change the burden of responsibility back to the content owners in a future OCM update. (Thank you, she, the voice of reason. )

For everyone (just a ramble)...

I'm inclined to believe that most webmasters are good people who follow rules and guidelines. The posted legal notices speak for themselves. On the flipside, I know a handful of webmasters who have either shut down their sites or stopped work on them after others pirated/pilfered their works without permission. In one specific case, a dear friend of mine watched his entire website republished elsewhere -- and dealt with a nightmare to have the site pulled down. As a result, he closed down his site completely and walked away. And when it's one of your mentors doing that, it was even more horrifying to witness, believe me. (Although he didn't share my thoughts on content distribution.)

It's almost a given that other web sites/webmasters will scavenge and illegally pilfer bits and pieces of content. Some people just don't give a damn.

For those that do, there's the Open Content Model (OCM): Permission to freely reprint content for non-commercial use. It's a marketing wrapper to 1.) let people know it's okay to republish the content; 2.) explain how they can do so; 3.) promote the ideal that credit goes where credit is due; 4.) to empower the web community to share/strengthen their own sites with shared content rather than hoarding and alienating other sites; and 5.) to provide some form of protection for those that publish their content, if someone uses it for commercial purposes. (They can fall back and say, "Yes, it was available to republish BUT under those guidelines!")

Think of the Open Content Model as a promotional tool. I could say, "The content is available for others to republish; see my Legal Notices" or I could brand it within this marketing wrapper of guidelines. (I chose the latter.)

The biggest issue for me isn't enforcement. It's the paradigm shift: "You're SHARING content? Huh?" Many people don't get it. It's like the free software/open source movement which I've been apart of since the 1990s. Some people cannot grasp (and still cannot grasp) the concept of "people creating free software and giving it away? And others can get the source code and use it?!"

Yes, they can. There are guidelines for it's usage. (And the same idea applies to the OCM.) Open source software has been THE biggest influence on me with this OCM concept.

On a similar note: Earlier this year, I came across the Creative Commons Licenses. Same principles, same ideals. The only significant difference is the naming. In my case, I feel the web community is stronger together than apart, hence the Open Content Model (and Creative Commons License). BattlestarPegasus.com will continue to support this model. Fellow webmasters will hopefully benefit from it, too, with more available content which they can use.

Again, it's all about the marketing wrapper: "Selling" the concept of shared content with the "Open Content Model" (and "Creative Commons Licence(s)").

Btw, when watching one of the demo reels at Galacticon (NOT the Foundation Imaging one), I saw models from BattlestarPegasus.com being used, particularly the Henry Gibbons's Galactica and David Moss's Viper. (I got a confirmation on it, too.) In a separate instance, another demo reel on the web showed David's models being used. It could be argued that the Open Content Model (OCM) failed. These models were grabbed and repurposed for commercial usage without permission. However, I'd rather acknowledge the usefulness of the OCM in allowing others to use the content as it was intended. And, as Michelle noted, it's important that these creators carry the burden themselves if they wish to pursue any further actions.

Michael
:colwar:

[michaelfaries]

Originally posted by larocque6689
I have been co-ordinating with Tom and Sandy (and less so with Darrell) with respect to the FAQ and other files. I would be happy to resubmit the entire Kobol archive including the FAQ to BSP.Com under the open content rules.

Fabulous!

Q: How should I get the latest copy, since the prior copy on my old BP.com files which you'd given me years ago, is doubtlessly outdated. :p

Michael
:colwar:

[larocque6689]

Darrell

Send me a PM at the Alliance, I'll get on it right away (same handle as here). As soon as you get the time - ha ha!

Michael - the latest version of the FAQ is at BattlestarGalactica.com:
https://www.battlestargalactica.com/kobol/bg-faq.php

I haven't updated the Home Video section but that's not a big deal.

John

[michaelfaries]

Perfect. Thanks, John! :colwar:

Michael