Home » Forum » Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Author disclaimer preventing archiving

Keet

Today I noticed a disclaimer on one of John Wales' stories:

Reposting and archiving of this and all of my stories is permitted, except where a fee of any sort is required or earned for access, provided this disclaimer and note remain attached to the story. All other rights, specifically rights of commercial use, are reserved. Commercial use here is defined to include posting on membership web sites, banner-funded web sites, and those protected by fee-based age validation methods. No modifications may be made to this story without express permission from the author. Any questions regarding use of this work can be directed to the author. Failure to contact the author prior to use is presumptive evidence of bad faith and may expose you to significant criminal and civil liability.

A pretty normal disclaimer like you see with more stories. The question is, does this disclaimer prevent the story from ever being archived? (Archiving puts it behind a pay wall/ payed membership.)

Ross at Play

@Keet

The question is, does this disclaimer prevent the story from ever being archived?

I doubt it. An author accepts the terms of the site's author agreement when they post a story. I can't see how those terms could be negated by any disclaimer within what they post.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Ross at Play

I doubt it. An author accepts the terms of the site's author agreement when they post a story. I can't see how those terms could be negated by any disclaimer within what they post.

I think I read somewhere in the forum that an author can make the choice whether the story is premium or not. Isn't this more or less the same as saying: "Nope, never gonna be premium"?

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Keet

I found the author agreement. Check for yourself.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Ross at Play

I found the author agreement. Check for yourself.

16. If you don't log into Storiesonline for more than 5 years, your stories will get moved into the archives which are accessible to premier members only.

Very clear, thank you.

Crumbly Writer

His disclaimer says nothing which in any way hints that it doesn't fully support archiving. All it says is that, you can distribute the story, free of charge, as long as you don't profit from the authors work. This is pretty standard stuff, and it looks like it was cut and pasted from any of thousands of websites. In short, anyone here can repost any of his stories on other sites, but no one can publish and sell his work as their own (as several people have tried over the years).

Replies:   Keet
Keet
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

His disclaimer says nothing which in any way hints that it doesn't fully support archiving

Yes it does:

except where a fee of any sort is required or earned for access

But since he accepted the author agreement that point became void. At least that's how I must interpret it.

Edit: Come to think of it: In this example its 9+ years since posting. Was that specific rule in the author agreement at that time?

Replies:   zellus
zellus

@Keet

https://storiesonline.net/d/s1/t2374/authors-agreement-updated

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@zellus

https://storiesonline.net/d/s1/t2374/authors-agreement-updated

That still doesn't answer it. An author that accepted the author agreement before point 16 was introduced and is no longer able to respond (died?) will have his stories behind the pay wall while he possibly had an explicit disclaimer that the stories are not allowed behind a pay wall. IANAL but it might even be illegal to put it behind the pay wall. Copyright etc. is a tricky thing in legal land.

awnlee jawking

@Keet

There are many similar cases in contract law eg when an employer says an employee must accept new terms of employment or be considered unemployed.

From the disclaimer, since the author would not have accepted the contract revision, there is no longer a valid contract permitting the story to be published on SOL.

AJ

Replies:   Keet  Ernest Bywater
Keet

@awnlee jawking

From the disclaimer, since the author would not have accepted the contract revision, there is no longer a valid contract permitting the story to be published on SOL.

I suspected something like that, but that would mean that the stories must be taken down completely when time for archiving arrives.

Crumbly Writer

@Keet

That still doesn't answer it. An author that accepted the author agreement before point 16 was introduced and is no longer able to respond (died?) will have his stories behind the pay wall while he possibly had an explicit disclaimer that the stories are not allowed behind a pay wall. IANAL but it might even be illegal to put it behind the pay wall. Copyright etc. is a tricky thing in legal land.

Except, if you follow that particular legal interpretation, the site would simply delete his stories entirely once they pass the five-year point. What do you think he'd prefer, Having NONE of his stories available, or having them hidden behind a pay-wall to make way for newer stories?

But legally, the language in the post isn't specifically targeted at the site, it's targeted at anyone copying and reposting the stories. As I said, it's a standard disclaimer form. Once posted, the site's owner has free access to make it available as he sees fit (he's already been given that flexibility when it was posted). A generic, general disclaimer doesn't limit that allowance once already granted to posting it to SOL, only announcing limitations on copying the material from the site.

Ernest Bywater

@Keet

That's is a disclaimer that was very standard for stories posted via the Newsgroups and those posted on ASSTR. The intent was to let those placing the stories on the free access sites like ASSTR to be able to do so, but to also provide grounds for a law suite against sites that were stealing the stories and then charging people to read them.

While I've had a lot of experience with the law over the years and I was once responsible for giving advice to academics on the application of Australian Copyright Law and the Berne Convention I am not an expert on Canadian or USA copyright law.

In my opinion, if an author included the above on a story and they've uploaded a story or logged on to the website since the new author agreement came into being they've accepted the new agreement as per the usual process for website policy changes, thus making the agreement's current form applicable to their stories. However, if they have not uploaded a story or logged on to the website since the change, then a case could be made to the courts that they've provided written advice the don't want the story placed behind the paywall at all. That would require the copyright owner (i.e. the author) to take Lazeez to court on this matter, but no one else could.

Mind you, I suspect if a story with that disclaimer were to be archived and the copyright holder / author found out the first thing they'd do would be to log on to the website to check it out. Once they do they make their account active again and Lazeez would de-archive the stories unless the author said to leave them as Premier. Thus it would become a null issue. Also, if the copyright holder / author never found it it would also be a null issue.

The matter comes down to the decision being one Lazeez has to make in regards to his own conscience. Knowing how Lazeez operates I would suspect he'd try to contact the copyright holder / author prior to archiving the stories, but I don't know.

Now, as to this specific author. His last story upload / update was June 2008 and his stories haven't yet been archived, so that means he has been active on the site since 2013 or he's eligible for archival and Lazeez has decided not to do so.

Replies:   Keet
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

From the disclaimer, since the author would not have accepted the contract revision, there is no longer a valid contract permitting the story to be published on SOL.


wrong. Since he hasn't accepted the new contract the old contract would still apply and the stories would simply have to be left in the free area.

Keet

@Ernest Bywater

Now, as to this specific author. His last story upload / update was June 2008 and his stories haven't yet been archived, so that means he has been active on the site since 2013 or he's eligible for archival and Lazeez has decided not to do so.

That was what made me wonder in the first place. There's no way to check if an author has logged in, no need to either, but it does make the difference for archiving. That's why I wondered if the stories were not archived because of his disclaimer. Reading all the replies here a lot is more clear now. I hope no stories are removed because of possible legalities.

awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

Since he hasn't accepted the new contract the old contract would still apply and the stories would simply have to be left in the free area.


That would be one way management could accommodate stories protected by Creative Commons-type disclaimers, but it would be a nightmare for the site to police. And I'm pretty sure that wasn't management's intention when they revised the contract.

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

it would be a nightmare for the site to police.


Not as hard as you would think. I can think of a number of ways to do it. The easiest would be a field in the story file with the type of copyright information, just a simple one character code that differentiates between the basic copyright and few specific copyrights. As a story with a non-basic copyright is noticed the code is amended so it can be noted later. When archiving a story it would only take a moment to check the copyright info attached to the story to make a decision on it and amend the copyright code. Not all that hard at all, you simple handle it as it occurs.

Replies:   Keet  Crumbly Writer
Keet

@Ernest Bywater

Not all that hard at all,

IF that code was available and inserted from the beginning. It would be a nightmare to introduce it now for old stories but might be a good thing for current and new stories.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Keet

IF that code was available and inserted from the beginning. It would be a nightmare to introduce it now for old stories but might be a good thing for current and new stories.


In the past when I worked on flat database it was easy to do, and a lot easier to do now with relational databases. The hardest part would be to populate the field for the old stories. However, it isn't that hard, as the process would be:

1. Create the database modification by adding the field.

2. Populate the field for all stories with the default code for the standard copyright statement.

3. As you have need to review a story for any reason, especially when archiving, review the copyright and confirm the field is properly coded.

That way you process the old material on a case be case basis as you need to. Because the great majority of stories will have the basic copyright the default will be correct.

I suspect Lazeez already has such a field in place because authors do have the ability to adjust the copyright to be different to the default one, and some of the stories are in the public domain and he'd want to have that info readily available as well.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Ernest Bywater

2. Populate the field for all stories with the default code for the standard copyright statement.

That's a very tricky thing to do since you possibly set a default code where a very specific code is required. You can only do that if you have a second code that indicates if the copyright code is verified. It's very unlikely that code is already in the database since it's very unusual. If there already is an up to date copyright code there is no problem.

Ernest Bywater

@Keet

That's a very tricky thing to do since you possibly set a default code where a very specific code is required.


When you find a specific non-default code is needed you change it. There's no need to have a second field to confirm it's correct. The webmaster and the authors can change the copyright data at any time, so it's easy to set the system to change the field as needed by what they choose. If they choose default for the copyright it changes the field to show that, if they choose another it adjusts the field for that.

At the moment the copyright field has 3 options"

Default notice

No copyright notice

Author specified notice

What we're discussing can be handled by one of 2 ways:

Option 1 is to add a fourth choice here of Author specified no archiving and include some code for the archiving program to ignore a story with that option code. When the webmaster spots a file with the Author specified no archiving copyright code he changes the code in the field to reflect that.

Option 2 is to add a field titled Can be archived Y/N and have it default to Y with an N entered when a story is noticed as being an N by the webmaster.

Essentially, add the process to identify the story as non-archivable with a default setting entered to allow it, and it only changes from the default when someone authorised to do so marks it as such. No need to make an effort to check and fix right now, leave it until required as the number of stories that would be affected would be a small fraction of 1% and not worth a special effort.

Ernest Bywater

@Keet

You can only do that if you have a second code that indicates if the copyright code is verified.


no need to verify until it comes up for archiving, and it should be part of the check then. No point in doing all the extra work on over 40,000 stories when it's only like to affect less than 100 stories.

Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)
Updated:

@Keet

The question is, does this disclaimer prevent the story from ever being archived?


tl;dr/The quick and short answer: No it doesn't.

According to my lawyers, any work submitted/uploaded voluntarily to the site is subject to the site's rules even when the rules change. It's up to the poster to object to the change and decide whether to remove the work or leave it under the new rules. It's not the site's responsibility to seek authors' agreement to the change unless the site solicited the author for the work and posted it under a specific agreement.

I learned that when I asked whether I should put a clause about the author agreement could be changed any time and for any reason. I was told that it was implicit in the agreement when people voluntarily agree to those type of agreements.

So, regarding this situation.

1- the author is around and is aware of the change. He has had the chance to object by removing his stories. He hasn't.

2- The disclaimer as stated applies to those who want to download/archive stories from the site here and not the author himself and doesn't apply to storiesonline or its affiliated sites.

3- The site's rules/agreement supersede whatever disclaimer an author chooses to post in the text.

Otherwise, anybody can sneak some clause into their Preface/prologue etc and have valid grounds to sue the site. So for example, if the author puts in a repost or in the end-note (which is directly editable) a disclaimer that for every copy downloaded from the site, the author is owed $10, does the site really owe them? No, that would be ridiculous.

Since it seems to be needed in order to make sure that what's implicit is clearly stated, I will add the clause about the changeability of the agreement.

Every time such a subject is brought up, I understand more why most sites opt for lengthy, detailed and intimidating legalese in their agreements.

Edited to add: I added line #17 to the rules.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Lazeez Jiddan (Webmaster)

tl;dr/The quick and short answer: No it doesn't.

Thank you, that was a very clear and enlightening answer. Sorry you have to add to your agreement again ;)

Crumbly Writer
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


wrong. Since he hasn't accepted the new contract the old contract would still apply and the stories would simply have to be left in the free area.


NO! That's clearly NOT the case. Since he posted the story, he clearly authorized the site to use the story as the site desires. If the site subsequently changes it's policy (such as when it decided to ban underage stories), that decision was a necessary one, and wouldn't negate the original authorization to use the story as they deemed fit at the time.

In law, you can't apply later interpretations (in the mind of a deceased author) to earlier agreements, otherwise NO LAW would ever be legally binding. If an author dislikes the new direction a site takes, then they're free to pull all their stories, as they deem fit. But they can't dictate how a site's owner decides to conduct their business from beyond the grave!

Note: Thanks, Lazeez, for clarifying my point in more concise language.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

Not as hard as you would think. I can think of a number of ways to do it. The easiest would be a field in the story file with the type of copyright information, just a simple one character code that differentiates between the basic copyright and few specific copyrights.

An even easier method would be to physically delete each and every story with such a standard disclaimer! If such a meaningless disclaimer is interpreted so broadly, then why would ANY site ever include them? That was NEVER the intent of the original disclaimer. Instead, they were stating that unauthorized individuals couldn't 'steal' the story to earn money by plagiarizing their work!

Trying to read in ulterior motives into a standard disclaimer is a nonsensical notion.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Keet

payed membership

FYI with no offense intended. I know that irregular verbs can be tricky for those using English as a second language.

There's a group of verbs ending in -ay which are all irregular in the same way: the simple past tense and the past participle both end in -aid rather than -ayed.

That group consists of the three (common) three-letter verbs ending in -ay, say, lay, and pay; plus anything with those verbs after any prefix, e.g. underpay. So it should be paid and underpaid, not payed and underpayed.

There are no main verbs with four or more letters which follow the same pattern of irregularity.

Replies:   Keet  richardshagrin
Keet

@Ross at Play

FYI with no offense intended. I know that irregular verbs can be tricky for those using English as a second language.

There's a group of verbs ending in -ay which are all irregular in the same way: the simple past tense and the past participle both end in -aid rather than -ayed.

That group consists of the three (common) three-letter verbs ending in -ay, say, lay, and pay; plus anything with those verbs after any prefix, e.g. underpay. So it should be paid and underpaid, not payed and underpayed.

There are no main verbs with four or more letters which follow the same pattern of irregularity.

I saw it the moment I laid my eyes on it. Unfortunately that is one of the mistakes I still sometimes make that is not marked by the spell checker.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Switch Blayde

@Keet

and pay


Yet the past tense of "play" is "played."
English is so much fun.

Keet

@Switch Blayde

Yet the past tense of "play" is "played."
English is so much fun.

Yep, that's the most difficult part for non-English speakers, the inconsistent "unruly rules" ;)

Replies:   gmontgomery
Ross at Play

@Switch Blayde

Yet the past tense of "play" is "played."

I checked the list of irregular verbs before making my post and explained this pattern of irregularity only applies to three-letter main verbs, not to any longer verbs, e.g. play.

I wouldn't have commented if I didn't have a tip Keet might be able to remember for the future.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Ross at Play

I checked the list of irregular verbs before making my post and explained this pattern of irregularity only applies to three-letter main verbs, not to any longer verbs, e.g. play.

I wouldn't have commented if I didn't have a tip Keet might be able to remember for the future.

That's the first time I ever heard about that three-letter trick. I'm definitely gonna try to remember that.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Keet

That's the first time I ever heard about that three-letter trick.

You're welcome.

To be ultra-precise, I did list the "three (common) three-letter verbs" ending in -ay: say, lay, and pay.

There is (at least) one uncommon three-letter verb which is regular, bay, meaning an animal making noise.

The only verb longer than three letters which is irregular is slay. That has past forms used in various situations of slayed, slew, and slain.

* * *

You may want to bookmark this page in your browser. I know most irregular verbs very well, but I still refer to this list quite often when I am editing.

Replies:   Keet  Crumbly Writer
Keet

@Ross at Play

You may want to bookmark this page in your browser. I know most irregular verbs very well, but I still refer to this list quite often when I am editing.

I do know most commonly used verbs but that page is helpful if I have any doubt about one I'm not familiar with.
The problem remains that when I use the verbs I know sometimes an error like this slips through. Now if I just remember "three, three, three..." (that's how it works in my weird brain).

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Keet

The problem remains that when I use the verbs I know sometimes an error like this slips through.

That's common enough for us native speakers too. In fact, excluding the truly anomalous things like irregular verbs, I've generally found the grammar of my European friends here is better than many of our American frenemies. :-)

Replies:   Keet  Crumbly Writer
Keet

@Ross at Play

That's common enough for us native speakers too. In fact, excluding the truly anomalous things like irregular verbs, I've generally found the grammar of my European friends here is better than many of our American frenemies. :-)

I read somewhere that's pretty common because non-native speakers learn the "clean" language and are not influenced by local dialects or daily speak.

awnlee jawking

@Crumbly Writer

When the author posted the story, the contract was consistent with his Creative Commons style copyright. When the contract was changed, it became inconsistent.

I'm not sure it's safe to override a copyright statement. Legal minefield :(

AJ

gmontgomery

@Keet

On the other hand, when learning English you don't have to memorize massive tables conjugations and declensions. IOW, written English can be a pain but not spoken English.

Yep, that's the most difficult part for non-English speakers, the inconsistent "unruly rules" ;)

Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

The only verb longer than three letters which is irregular is slay. That has past forms used in various situations of slayed, slew, and slain.

I've always wanted to use the term "sleward" (one who is called upon to slay in the past), but somehow, the situation just never arises. 'D

Crumbly Writer

@Ross at Play

I've generally found the grammar of my European friends here is better than many of our American frenemies.

Depending upon who these unidentified 'frenemies' are, but if it's one particular individual, then you're setting a bar far too low. Now if you're describing many of your fellow SOL authors, then the bar may still be a bit low. 'D

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

I'm not sure it's safe to override a copyright statement. Legal minefield

The key is, he accepted the conditions when he submitted it. But a single acceptance can't negate a site's ability to adapt to changing circumstances in order to survive. If he (or any heirs, should he unexpectedly die) object, they can then pull their stories, but a generically stated objection to copyright theft can't preclude a legal requirement by the site's owner.

Once again, there's NO indication the CC copyright statement was directed against the site specifically. Rather, it's a general catch-all for copyright theft in general. But SOL has already received his permission to display his works.

If you disagree with that situation, maybe you'd best pull your own works now too?

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@Crumbly Writer

But SOL has already received his permission to display his works.


The author gave SOL permission to display the work under the contract at the time it was published, which was then compatible with Creative Commons.

AJ

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
richardshagrin

@Ross at Play

There's a group of verbs ending in -ay which are all irregular in the same way: the simple past tense and the past participle both end in -aid rather than -ayed.

So if ray is a verb, the past tense would be raid? If I shoot you with a ray gun, did you get raid?

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@richardshagrin

That group consists of the three (common) three-letter verbs ending in -ay, say, lay, and pay

Predicting a stupid nitpick like this, I was careful to specify precisely what I meant in my first post raising this point.

That group consists of the three (common) three-letter verbs ending in -ay, say, lay, and pay

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

The author gave SOL permission to display the work under the contract at the time it was published, which was then compatible with Creative Commons.

Geez! Let it go, will 'ya? The author is still alive and active on the site. If he disagreed with the current policy's, he's free to pull his stories whenever he wants. The fact that he hasn't negates your arguments that Lazeez should simply fold up his shop, allow every single author to dictate whatever terms the want on anything they post, tacking on an unseen addendum whenever they think they can sneak it in.

You simply CAN'T run a business based on bogus legal advice from the peanut gallery! The issue was settled a LONG time ago.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Dominions Son
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


When the author posted the story, the contract was consistent with his Creative Commons style copyright. When the contract was changed, it became inconsistent.

I'm not sure it's safe to override a copyright statement. Legal minefield :(


1. Technically, it's not a copyright statement, it's a grant of a limited license to use the copyrighted work.

A copyright statement would by "copyright [date] by [author]" nothing more.

2. When an author posts a story directly to a site like SOL, the site automatically gets an implied (or express, depending on the TOS) license to use the work, and that would override any limited license grant in the text of the story itself.

Keet

Lazeez has answered this question very clearly. He has taken legal advise and the result is that it is legal to put stories behind the pay wall. So, there's no question about the legality.
On the other hand I personally feel it's not fair towards authors who want to post their stories to be freely available. In the current situation their only options are to accept a pay wall or to pull their stories (If they are still able to make that choice). Pulling their stories obviously goes against their original goal to publish stories that are available for free to everyone interested. I know, they can just log in to prevent archiving but there comes a time when they are no longer able to do that. It must hurt some authors to know that their stories will no longer be available for free in the long run.

Replies:   John Demille
John Demille

@Keet

It must hurt some authors to know that their stories will no longer be available for free in the long run.


I'm sure it does.

Being an author (A great one - Shut up) that chose to keep my stories premier only just to support Storiesonline (I'm close friends with Lazeez), I may have a different perspective than other authors; but I'll share this point of view.

I think that the rules are more than fair enough for authors. When an author chooses to post their stories on storiesonline (and/or FS and SFS), they get a distribution platform that presents their stories well to a fairly wide audience for free (no ads are displayed, so no direct benefit to SOL) so technically, SOL doesn't make a dime from hosting any specific author's stories and SOL pays the cost.

This free service lasts for 5 years after the author stops logging into the site. I'm sure that there are authors who haven't posted for a long time (for example Losgud who responded here on the forum lately and hasn't posted since 2013) and are still around. So they're still benefitting from this service without losing anything.

I can't speak for others, but I would only guess that for most people, if my works helped keep the site online for readers and future authors online after I benefitted from SOL for so many years when the only cost for me is posting my stories here, then it's an acceptable compromise.

The thing is, from my experience with people, most likely, most authors would choose to not archive their stories if given the option. Most authors would think, "I'm sure there will be enough authors who would share, so I don't have to".

And if SOL doesn't survive because not enough authors chose to let the archiving happen, then the result will be worse for their stories. If archived, some people will still read them, if not archived and the site folds, then no people will read them anymore.

Keep in mind that most authors post on other sites too. So with internet search engines most readers can still get the stories free long after they get archived on SOL as the site provides enough previews.

I'm sure that there are authors that would choose to prevent archiving even at the cost of the site's survival.

Replies:   Keet  Crumbly Writer
Keet

@John Demille

Being an author (A great one - Shut up) that chose to keep my stories premier only just to support Storiesonline

I totally agree with you, I was just pointing out that for some authors it would hurt. I can understand other authors like you that post exclusively premium. The point is, that is your choice. And it's just as valid as any other. I agree that SOL has costs that somehow must be compensated to survive but on the other hand all authors together provide the necessary content, for free. I was really thinking about those authors that are no longer able to login for whatever reason and they never wanted them to disappear. Once again, I understand the need for funds but the authors provide, for free, a big part of the resources to have a business in the first place.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Keet

I was just pointing out that for some authors it would hurt.


I doubt that very much. Remember, for a story to be archived it has to have gone 5 years without the author logging into his account at all. If the author hasn't visit SoL for 5 years, he's probably no longer interested in what's happening with the stories, or unable to be interested in what's happening with the story. Thus it would be a null issue for them.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Ernest Bywater

I doubt that very much. Remember, for a story to be archived it has to have gone 5 years without the author logging into his account at all. If the author hasn't visit SoL for 5 years, he's probably no longer interested in what's happening with the stories, or unable to be interested in what's happening with the story. Thus it would be a null issue for them.

I don't agree in the case of deceased authors. They don't know it but they might never have intended it and would have preferred that their stories be kept alive for all to read. It's a matter of respect.
Of course there are authors that just don't care anymore but it remains a tricky point, because you just don't know.

Replies:   Ross at Play  REP
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Keet

Give it a rest, will ya? A privately run business offers a free service under clearly defined terms and conditions.

End of story in my opinion.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Ross at Play

Give it a rest, will ya? A privately run business offers a free service under clearly defined terms and conditions.

I thought I made it very clear that I acknowledged and accepted that. I am just responding to other posters that challenge my opinion. Rest assured, this will be the end of this story from my end.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Keet

I thought I made it very clear that I acknowledged and accepted that.

Okay. Personally, I'm grateful for whatever irritations premier membership produces: the site could not be so well managed without them.

awnlee jawking
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer

Lazeez should simply fold up his shop


I have never suggested that and I have no idea why you should think that. I want the site to thrive, but also I want intellectual property rights to be respected.

The author went to considerable lengths to set out the conditions of usage for the story. It seems to me that an e-mail warning to the author when their stories are up for archiving would be an adequate response. For all I know, the site might already do that.

AJ

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
awnlee jawking

@Switch Blayde

Bombalurina relayed the ultimatum to the Ogres Council.

Marcus relaid the carpet but this time it came up short.

Don't you just love it! ;)

AJ

REP

@Keet

It's a matter of respect.


Yes it is, but not the way you mean it.

We all know that sites like SOL have rules that govern our use of the site. When a person registers as a member of a story site such as SOL, they incur an obligation to determine and comply with the site's rules. If they fail to determine those rules, then they are still subject to the rules. A respectful user learns and complies with the site's rules, and in the case of an author that includes the rules that govern posting stories.

If an author fails to determine the rules governing posting stories to the site, then they deserve what happens to them and their stories. That includes having their stories moved behind the 'pay wall' if they aren't active on the site for 5 years, and that is not disrespectful to the deceased author. Since a respectful author knows their stories will be moved behind the 'pay wall', then before their death, they have a choice of leaving their stories on the site or removing them. If the author has not removed their stories prior to their death, they have tacitly given permission for placing their stories behind the 'pay wall'.

Once their stories are moved behind the 'pay wall', the stories are still alive and available to all readers. However, the readers have to pay a small annual fee to become Premier Members in order to obtain access to the additional features and the stories.

I don't agree in the case of deceased authors.


Your opinion really doesn't matter. The deceased authors were aware of the above and made their choices. If they weren't aware of the above, they should have been aware of it; their ignorance of the above was a choice.

AmigaClone

The "archiving five years after the last time someone logged into an author's account" rule only came into effect last year.

Authors that died in the past year like Wes Boyd and Mike Cropo might have known of the change, but others like Voletrin who passed away over ten years ago had no reason to suspect that change would be made.

The families of the first two authors knew and approved of their hobby, in fact Wes Boyd's son-in-law is continuing to post the stories the former had completed prior to his death on the site he created.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son
Updated:

@AmigaClone


The "archiving five years after the last time someone logged into an author's account" rule only came into effect last year.


It doesn't really matter.

By posting here, they gave SOL an implied or express license to the work that is more durable than, and not bound by the terms/limitations of, any global limited license grant embedded in the story itself such as a creative commons license.

I can't be sure about Canadian copyright law, but under US law, no statement by the author embedded with the text of the story can place greater limitations on the use/distribution of the story than copyright law does itself.

All the author can do with such a statement is grant a limited license to whoever receives the story, giving the recipient more rights to use/distribute the story than they would have under copyright law itself.

However, the very act of posting the story on a site like SOL automatically gives that site a license separate from the one granted in the text of the story.

Crumbly Writer

@John Demille

This free service lasts for 5 years after the author stops logging into the site. I'm sure that there are authors who haven't posted for a long time (for example Losgud who responded here on the forum lately and hasn't posted since 2013) and are still around. So they're still benefitting from this service without losing anything.

What's more, if the author wants his stories to remain active, all he'd have to do is to ask his relatives to continue signing in to keep them active (something easy enough to specify in a will, including the appropriate log-in details). It's questionable whether his kids would care about his 'porn story fascination', but it's at least in their hands. Assuming they'd be offended by Lazeez making room for new stories on the site is making some HUGE assumptions you have no valid reason to make for any particular author you didn't actually know.

Keep in mind that most authors post on other sites too. So with internet search engines most readers can still get the stories free long after they get archived on SOL as the site provides enough previews.

Case in point: I purposely archived my Catalyst series, not so it would benefit the site, but because I no longer think it reflects my best work (and yes, I'm considering revising the entire series, at some point). But, because so many on the site depend on free stories because they're on a limited income, I moved the 'free' stories to the lesser used alternative SOL sites, specifically SciFiStories, hoping it might boost the already low visitations there. I'm not sure it helps much, but it keeps the stories available to those with limited income while also keeping the older stories out of the public eye, for the most part.

Crumbly Writer

@awnlee jawking

The author went to considerable lengths to set out the conditions of usage for the story. It seems to me that an e-mail warning to the author when their stories are up for archiving would be an adequate response. For all I know, the site might already do that.

Now that's a reasonable suggestion, rather than you're previous cries of 'that's unfair to those authors who never objected'. As such, that's something that Lazeez can evaluate and decide whether it makes sense to implement, rather than a vague, generic objection on 'the writer's word should be the last word in every single instance'.

But again, the write did not go to 'considerable lengths' to outline the site's allowable usage of the story, as that's covered by the site's TOS. Instead, he posted a generic statement granted a limited exemption to individuals to copy and distribute his story to OTHER sites, requesting they DON'T post it commercially for their own benefit. That's a different story entirely!

Back to Top