Thoughts on "build threads"

Picking up on Jo's point about the use of content submited to this site ... It is interesting to compare Clauses 3 and 3.1

... especially considering that 3.1 uses the terms Galleries and Portfolios [whereas the site itself uses the term Album].

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 29/07/2014 22:09:45

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 29/07/2014 22:10:15

I went in to clean the small engine thread up as some of these wanderings were mine but I see that Jason has already done it.

As regards the terms on this website, they are clearly mentioned, nothing hidden and perhaps if certain people don't agree to them then they need to find another site, plenty of them.

Hi Jason,

An interesting topic you have raised here which has provoked some equally interesting responses. In my opinion, a locked thread is fine if it is covering an engine build by someone like yourself who is clearly a very competent model engineer and also has the necessary writing and photography skills to present your progress in an interesting and informative way. Perhaps in this scenario, the thread could be opened to forum members once complete where the "wow, nice work" type of comments would not cause any disruption to the flow of the thread and others could post any questions arising from the build description. Perhaps you could run a parallel open thread where issues could be discussed without disrupting the flow of the build thread? 

However the "my little engine" thread to which I think you are referring is a totally different situation. If I'm not mistaken, this thread was a resurrection of a previous thread, by a novice who was using the original thread to display his progress with his model engine but seemed to take offence to more experienced members passing comment on how things might be done differently and the inevitable discussions that arise from such comments. In fact he was so incensed that he disappeared from the forum and the thread was duly locked as there was no more useful contribution to be made. A while later the same contributor pops up again to re-post his original thread editing out most of the previous comments from other contributors leaving a thread that was frankly about as useful as a film script with only one actors' lines visible in it. It seems the thread was more of a "look what I've made" ego trip for the poster born out by the fact that after his previous outburst few people were prepared to comment in the new thread and once again he appears to have " gone to ground".

So, from the novice builders thread point of view, I don't think a locked thread would be either practical or helpful to anyone. Such a thread, if open, would be a great resource for the original poster and other beginners as it would show progress interspersed with comment and advice from more experienced builders. Obviously there would be some off topic or "wow, nice work" type comments but I think most readers are able to skirt over these without to much of a problem.

Well, that's my two pennies worth put in! Regards, Martin.

Edited By Martin Cottrell on 29/07/2014 23:47:25

Ah - OK Jo

I do not often visit this site anymore because each time I do I see another occurrence of this sort of behaviour and it puts me off for a few more weeks, the one that immediately comes to mind in is Gray's thread about his drill grinding jig .

I will agree that was a very sad episode which has deprived this forum of much high quality information. My sense is that things have become quieter recently.

Regards

Norman

Edited By NJH on 30/07/2014 00:09:13

Indeed, that is what most people who write build threads do. Neil's question was to why they may not choose to post them here.

What is sad about such Ts&Cs is threads, like Jason's various engine builds, have appeared on many forums concurrently over the years and David on MEW has been good enough to put them together as a series of articles so that people can have the pleasure of reading them without all the comments and interaction. But because the latest Monitor build has been posed here the Ts&Cs mean that David will not be doing the same with that series.

Jo

My interpretation of the T&C's is that if I post material on this website, the site owners have to be granted permission to do what they wish with the material. This permission then allows them to show the material all over the world, in any shape or form, without fear of any legal comebacks.

But, as I see it, this agreement does not stop me from 'also' publishing that self same material elsewhere (or does it?)

I would appreciate clarification on this. Thanks.

Steve

I don't think that is the case as I have shown plenty of photos on here of other engines that have subsequently been put on David's site. The T&C for user submitted content gives MTM "non-exclusive" rights unlike items submitted for publication in the mag. The reason I tend to post elsewhere is its a simpler process than here and easy to copy and past the same build to similar sites that use the same code for images etc.

J

Edited By JasonB on 30/07/2014 07:46:49

Jason, what you choose to do as a private individual is likely to be different from what David may choose to do as someone who runs another commercial website associated with publishing material associated with Model Engineering.

International copyright laws allow you to protect yours rights using something called "prior publication", but the wording used in the Ts&Cs here is clearly designed to overcome those protections. As to if MTM would actually take someone to court over it, that is another matter.

Edited By John Stevenson on 30/07/2014 10:47:48

.

Jason,

I agree:

The style of Clause 3 does make for rather difficult reading, but it is not a "Copyright Grab".

It contains two phrases which give that comfort:

• owned by you
• non-exclusive

The closing sentence is, however, easily misinterpreted:

"You agree to irrevocably and unconditionally waive on your behalf in perpetuity in respect of such Content the benefit of any provision of law known as moral rights of authors or any similar law in any country."

• The important thing here is "law known as moral rights of authors" ... which covers two specific rights and is neatly summarized on the IPO website.

MichaelG.

_______________

N.B. The foregoing is an Opinion given in good faith, but should not be relied upon.

_______________

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 30/07/2014 08:04:59

Jason is quite right that the rights are non-exclusive.

It's interesting that these T&Cs are exactly what would give us the right to collect together the elements of a 'build thread', edit it, and repost it as an article as is being suggeted by users! I wonder if the site Jo uses that does this has T&Cs that explicitly allow this to be done?

Be reassured, the reason for waiving the 'moral rights' is not so we can use peoples' contributions in a 'derogatory manner'. The reason is so that when the material is re-used we don't HAVE to acknowledge the author. For a start, this would make things like having automatic display of gallery pictures on the home page impossible.

Neil

hi jason,

please dont lock 'build threads'. they are a valuable resource for model engineers with different backgrounds, levels of skill and experience, and different types of equipment.

i have a few 'build threads' on the model engineering clearing house proboards site, and often ask for advice which is always most generously provided by fellow model engineers.

i dont agree with bill starling's comment that 'well done' comments are 'look at me'. when building something it is always nice to get the odd comment and in my case fires me with renewed enthusiasm to keep going.

cheers,

julian

Referring to MichaelG's post:

So that means that when someone posts a comment saying that "Rod Jenkins looks like a pig and smells like one too" I can't sue MTM? (apart from the fact that it's true, obviously). I can live with that.

Thanks for the clarification Michael. It's clearly a minefield when amateurs try to (mis)interpret the law but I take the view that a company that relies on it's contributers isn't trying to screw them.

Yours trustingly,

Rod

Edited By Roderick Jenkins on 30/07/2014 09:23:23

Edited By Roderick Jenkins on 30/07/2014 09:26:25

As the posts are tagged with the posters name and the name of the thread originator is known all the data you need to discriminate is available.

Is it not possible then to post-filter the thread on the website so that there is an option button to display the postings of the thread originator only or thread originator + everything else.

Martin

MEM explicitly leaves all rights of any contribution with the contributor.

It is not a commercial site and has been set up in such a way to prevent it being sold out to a commecial concern in the future. It is both owned and run by people who do model engineering as their hobby with the aim of creating a warm and friendly community who can share information, techniques, builds, etc. without fear of commercial exploitation or having to suffer with adverts etc.

Jo

Hello Jo

May I politely suggest that if MEM is so good and this site so awful, that you make your comments there, rather than here?

Nei

I think build threads are incredibly useful if one is thinking of building something and want any supporting info even if the thread only got part way. Every little helps. Also a new builder might want to resurrect an old thread to either ask relevant questons or perhaps continue it where left off. This is better kept together on one topic rather than starting a new thread which locking would prevent. This would apply even if the build were completed and edited into an article.

I would like to see every build in ME/MEW automatically get a parallel thread for extra pictures and perhaps good contributions getting extracted into the paper copy for posterity.

I really can't go along with the "if you don't like us go away" attitude as there are already far too many forums to keep up with. It is a bit like employers who say "if the money & conditions are bad just go find another job". Who approves of that attitude? An employer has a moral obligation to be nice and fair to it's staff and so does a forum.

Edited By Bazyle on 30/07/2014 12:05:09

john (Bogstandard2),

for the miniature locomotive builder there are a large number of exceptionally detailed 'build threads' plus healthy banter and sharing of information on the model engineering proboards site, so i dont agree that your comments apply to 'every ME site'.

cheers,

julian

John, not everyone can achieve your high standards, both in build and documentation. A lot of engineers are communicatonally challenged, but can click a camera shutter. I think it would be a pity to put off less capable people from contributing and further we possibly need to (by pm not publicly) admonish anyone who feels the need to make heavy handed criticism of their efforts that then puts them off continuing.

If the detail in the text is not sufficient someone could always help by pretending to have less knowledge and frame a pseudo question like "As my lathe is rather small should I drill the hole in stages of 2mm at a time rather than try a 2 inch drill straight off?".

I have no beef with MEM, to be honest, the more forums there are the better it is for everyone.

My frustration is with someone using this forum to undermine its own credibility.

There is no hiding that this is a commercial site and MEM isn't. Our terms and conditions are comparable with other commercial (and some non-commercial sites). Bear in mind that someone has paid lawyers to write our T&Cs and they are intended to protect us to make sure we have the rights to do things with user content that most people would assume were automatic. People are far more likely to take legal action against a company for wrongful use of material.

Some of what is being said is mis-information. The 'moral right of authors' does not apply to magazines or newspapers. This site is effectively an online magazine and needs the same flexibility to republish content in different parts of the website. Not also that, for gallery photographs, we undertake not to publish elsewhere without permission.

The BBC states: "5.2 If you submit your contribution to the BBC you must allow the BBC to use the material in your contribution in any way it may reasonably choose on a free-of-charge basis in any media throughout the world." It's true they don't state 'in perpetuity", but that's pretty much blanket permission to do whatever they want.

For the record, the MEM 'registration agreement' says absolutely nothing about copyright, but unlike us it only offers a discussion forum.

Neil

.

And to use it as a vehicle for their own agenda. The majority of users on here never see the behind the scenes antics where posters post under different aliases , even answer their own posts and offer advise to others, including moderators from their different aliases.

For them it's just an ego trip.

Not just this forum but others as well from the same people with different names but same IP address's.

One Ijit from this forum even signed up on the HSM forum with an alias but used his own email address and IP.

Edited By John Stevenson on 30/07/2014 16:39:37