Great ! I shall post the most assinine moronic dis-informative comments on my blog and let anyone rip those comments of as gospel truth.

Feel free to print, display, or otherwise distribute my comments herein as deemed appropriate for the intended purpose.  You are not authorized to edit, change, expand, embellish or in any way modify my comments without written permission from the commentator (me).

Comment on the subject: Who Owns Comments? :

If you can be held accountable for a comment and/or its repurcussions then you must first own that comment.  If you do not own the comment, then likewise you cannot be held accountable for it.  Accountability is the issue.  If I comment that I am selling drugs to children on streetcorners across from their school, it is I that law enforcement will pursue, NOT the media that published it.  If I am liable, then I own the comment.  However, once that comment is publically published whether in print or digitally and regardless of media, it becomes public domain and can be repeated AS WRITTEN without permission unless accompanied by a specific notice stating that the comment is not permitted to be reproduced without authorization.  Modifying the comment gives new ownership to the modifier, and subects that individual to the repurcussions of ownership including slander or liable if in so doing, causes harm to the original commentor.

I agree with William. The blog owner has the right to decide what to do with the comments – to publish or not, to remove any time he wants, as long as the comment is not altered in any way and the name of the commenter is kept intact.

I think this is a tremendous and new consideration for copyright laws. I don’t know when the last time that happened! Bravo!

Unfortunately, it got my hillbilly brain spinnin’. A couple of things came to mind.

First off, the newspaper invites "Letter to the Editor", which usually includes the full name, address, and phone number of the letter’s author within the submission information–whether or not that information is published with the Letter.. In short, that person "gives up" their right of exclusive rights to their words with submission, as all Letters become the property of the Newspaper when the words are received. This is regardless of whether the letter is published, or altered (for whatever reasonable purpose the Editor may determine). Journalism does still have a strict code of (Imagine!) ethics, including the presumption of accuracy. Published letters may be altered, used en toto, or scrapped–based upon the determination of the Newspaper! That decision is left (use of the words) to the responsible party (Editor), based upon the needs of the Newspaper. Only when the Letter is materially changed ("Yes!" becomes, for instance, "NO!") does the question arise. But it is not a question of copyright. It is a question of accuracy. The trade is made between ownership of copyright and publication of  the Letter author’s words.

When, twenty years later, the article (and the Letter) are referenced in a textbook (for instance), whose ownership is maintained? The newspaper. Why? The agreement still applies. 

Secondly, I have been asked to publish one of my blogs (and the attendant comments) which, quite honestly, MAKE the blog what it is. Thousands of comments and hundreds of commenters would necessarily be involved in the publication. I hold the continuing creative copyright to the blog. That includes the unique nature of the blog as a result of the comments received. All comments are (by nature of the site where the blog exists in perpetuity) anonymous.  Could anyone reasonably argue for the preservation of the comments, replete with royalties which may result therefrom? Could I expect recompense for lousy sales? Should a Notice of Copyright Forfeit be posted on the blog’s header? I own the blog. Is it worth it?

Finally:

Person A writes a blog rant about unfaithful spouses. Person B writes a comment to the entry which, via anonymous reference, includes an admission of Person B’s ongoing infidelity towards their spouse. Reader C "figures out" that Person B can only be her daughter-in-law. Reader C informs Person D (her son) of his wife’s printed admission.

In a fit of passionate outrage, Person D murders his wife–Person X!

Who is legally and/or morally responsible for the tragic mis-identification which resulted in the untimely demise of Person X? And, can Person D sue Person A (copyright owner) (from his prison cell) for damages pursuant to the article, and the comment related to it? I would agree that Person C should be liable, but would the situation have even existed but for the copyrighted words of Person A?

Best use, natural intent, and all other issues set aside, is it possible, or even preferable, to open this can?

What say you?

I explicitly leave copyright ownership with the writer, other than my right to publish whatever the person has written.

I do go one step further by informing the writer I will, upon request, remove the piece and delete it from my host server so no one can unearth it.  I feel obliged to do so because I’m not in a position to pay people to contribute.

Private comments, especially ones negative, about my website are a somewhat different matter.  Not wanting to embarrass the writer by publicly attributing a comment to a writer, I generally follow the rule of thumb of not quoting the person and not naming him or her, but I do sometimes publicly mention the comment in my weekly e-column, especially if I either feel it’s a valid criticism that I’ve accepted and followed to modify my ways or if I feel it’s unacceptable but deserves publicly disputing, citing my reasons why.  (I apply the same standards to comments people tell me in person, which is pretty darned often.)

However, if a person commenting in any format explicitly tells me the communication is private and he or she wants it kept that way, I respect that request 100%.

I guess I tend towards the spirit of the European law, though I’m American.

I often think about this issue, not only because I do have my own website but also — and especially — because I live in Thailand, one of the countries with the highest rates of piracy of legally-protected intellectual property.  And even more especially because Thailand isn’t a signatory to the Berne Convention, signing on only as an "observer," whatever that means, another question never satisfactorily decided by the International Court of Justice nor any other court.

In short, at the end of the day, I believe the creator of any words has an absolute right to ownership of those words, abesent a legal agreement to the contrary.  I have no problem with, say, a newspaper or other publication, whether a paper one or a digital one, citing submission equals surrender of some or even all rights to what I’ve said or written.  On a few occasions I’ve written letters to editors on a private basis, and have explicitly said the observation wasn’t for publication.  In fact, I make it a point to open and close with a comment to that effect, so the editor can’t later claim I didn’t.  And I keep a digital copy for evidential reasons, should an editor be so stupid as to ignore my statements.  And, yes, were an editor to do so, I would turn my lawyer loose on the publication generally and the editor in particular.  And my lawyer’s and his firm’s specialty is nailing violaters of intellectual property rights.  On that side of the issue, I’m both ferocious and relentless.

I do grant you the right to publish these comments.  I also retain the right to repeat them elsewhere, if I so wish.  And, of course, you have an absolute right not only to publish this, but to decide to trash it. 

Sincerely,

Mekhong Kurt
Bangkok, Thailand
http://BangkokAtoZ.com 

Interesting.  When you comment on a post or article its giving your imput on a subject I dont feel it belongs to the blog owner or to the commenter.  it belong to the readers of that post or blog to then give more feedback on.

Great article Jason, look foward to reading more of your posts.

Another great article Jason

Personally, the comments belong to the blog site. This is because upon commenting on a certain blog, the commenter in effect waived its right to it. However, the blog site cannot use the same in any other site or area without acknowledging the commenter therof.