Forum: Author Hangout

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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

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!

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.

and pay

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.