I have an important question for regular readers. Say a guest author wrote a post on TOP a number of years ago, and you left a comment. Now, he wants to republish the same post on his own website. He feels your comment is valuable and also wants to include that. He's leaving it in the same context in which it was written and the original source will be noted, and let's stipulate that the new location will be a courteous and decent public website, nothing fringey or dark. Assuming he cannot ask your permission directly, would you have any objection to him exporting your comment and republishing it? Would you feel your rights had been trampled, that you had been taken advantage of, or even that his actions were merely somewhat impolite to you? Would you feel uncomfortable about it in any way?
Please do speak up even if your objections are minor, as I'm trying to take the temperature of the readership as a whole.
Thanks!
Mike
P.S. Comments to this post will not be published until this evening or tomorrow, as I don't want the responses of others to influence anyone who is responding.
I have no problem with my public proclamations taking on a life of their own and showing up wherever they might appear. I have made that assumption ever since I said something Ill advised to a reporter back in high school. It’s a funny story but I’m not telling it here. There are apparently people still upset about it 50 years later.
Posted by: hugh crawford | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 04:35 PM
Let him have at it. Thinking anything a person may post on-line is somehow protected speech or whatever, is not appropriate if we want the Internet to remain free. I know you didn’t ask, and I find Facebook to be like a gate keeper, can’t see most of our stuff unless you sign up, and we sell your info for profit.
Posted by: Jim R | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 04:44 PM
Without knowing more information, I need to say "no" to republish anything I do not give first person consent to.
I have had numerous articles published over the years and would never republish comments from another site. Doing so could be viewed redundant, and possibly misleading for marketing purposes.
Instead, I include a statement saying: "This article was also published at ...." (linked to the other website's page with my article and comments), and if someone wants to read the comments posted over there, they can.
Posted by: darlene | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 04:44 PM
I'd have no issues with that at all.
Posted by: Patrick Dodds | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 05:18 PM
We know who it is, you two are friends, let him have his articles and the pertinent comments.
Posted by: Peter Williams | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 05:35 PM
It would be fine with me, no problem. I stand with my statements.
Posted by: Lothar Adler | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 05:37 PM
If I were the commenter in question, I would have NO OBJECTION to the reposting.
Posted by: Victor Bloomfield | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 05:43 PM
No concerns about republishing with comments.
Posted by: Jeff Smith | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 05:49 PM
No prob. Go ahead.
Posted by: Gregory Edwards | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 06:23 PM
My thoughts and words of the past may no longer reflect, either in part or in their entirety, my thoughts, feelings and beliefs of today. As one ages, matures, becomes more educated and worldly, the amount and type of information that one gathers and assimilates can influence and change us. I am not the same person I was 20 years ago. I would want to have the option of reviewing and approving a comment I made many years ago to ensure that it still faithfully matches my beliefs today. Otherwise, others may be left with a false idea of who I am as opposed to who I was and not know or understand any transformation or personal growth I may have made.
Posted by: Dennis Mook | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 06:50 PM
I'm not that frequent a commenter, but FWIW, if the context is preserved, I would be fine having any comments I might have made republished as you described. I would hope that part of that context would include a prominent credit, "Originally published on TOP, yyyy/mm/dd".
Posted by: Jeff Hohner | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 07:05 PM
I would have no problem with my comments being included in the post.
Posted by: Steven Palmer | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 07:06 PM
I am fine with it. Public comments are just that, public. As long as they are not taken out of context, as you mentioned wouldn’t be the case. I might feel a bit different about pictures, though I accept fair use for publicly posted pictures. But I don’t post pictures in TOP because I have no idea how to do it.
Posted by: Ilkka | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 07:21 PM
Nope, not even minor objections. I would have assumed that my original comments would immediately become, in a way, “public domain,” and after that I would have nothing to say about them.
Posted by: Nicholas Hartmann | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 07:28 PM
I am a regular (every day) reader but infrequent commenter.I find the comments are an inseparable and significant part of TOP. I personally find them very insightful.
A TOP post without comments would be like a car without wheels, it aint going anywhere.
So yes repost the comments as well.
Posted by: InkPhot | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 07:34 PM
My feeling is that I surrender all rights upon clicking "Post". Also, anyone and I mean anyone can copy and paste to untold ends and here's someone going to the trouble to ask first; that should be rewarded.
Posted by: David Stubbs | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 07:38 PM
I would think that if someone were to re-publish an article on another site, you would need the permission of all of those who leave comments to have them re-published as well. I am quite sure that would be a PITA to obtain. Those who leave comments on your posts are aware and therefore agreeing to have them published on your site.
Posted by: David Drake | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 08:14 PM
I think once the comment is published, it is now publicly visible and the poster doesn't have much say if it then gets quoted somewhere else. It is after all non-trivial even to remove a comment from this website where it was published first.
Academically speaking, in the new article I'd publish those comments as quotes taken from the original source with a link here. There may be no need to refer to the original commenter by full name or with contact details on the new site - this site/article is the primary reference. I wouldn't however 'fake' post each comment in the comments section on the new website, that would be a bit disingenuous as that information was never posted as a comment there.
The best way would be to post the text under an 'original comments' heading at the end of the reposted article, with a link back to this site for readers to follow the full context of comments.
Posted by: Nick | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 08:28 PM
I’d have no problem if the author also offered to remove/edit/anonymise any comments when requested.
[For me, that'd be a huge amount of extra work. It can take me ten minutes to find an old post, never mind modify a specific comment. --Mike]
Posted by: Jeremy Fagan | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 09:20 PM
My main thing is, I'd like to know.
Which treads on that "cannot ask permission directly" thing a little, though I feel I wouldn't need to give permission.
I wouldn't feel taken advantage of as anything I wrote here as comment was in response, feeling less like "original content" than it does my reaction (not universalising my position, I realise people relate to their own words in different ways). So if represented, or even criticised, in a respectful way... I feel I wouldn't complain, that it was conversational. As if it was a conversation had at a cafe that a person then repeated/quoted elsewhere to generate further conversation.
But, and yet, I'd like to know.
Posted by: Marc Lawrence-Howe | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 09:41 PM
No objection here. I’m pretty “old school” when it comes to the web and blogs in particular. When I post a comment I’m pretty much putting it out there for the world to consume. I’m especially unconcerned if the context is similar. I might give it side-eye if he were using it in a highly commercial context or significantly changing the tone or purpose of the re-post. Otherwise, no worries!
Posted by: Ed Hawco | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 09:49 PM
On your assumptions. No problem at all. In any event, the possibility is a reason I post under a handle.
Posted by: Bear. | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 11:11 PM
You've asked 5 questions, and my answer is no to every one of them.
You did not say if the guest author might respond to and criticize readers' comments that were originally posted in TOP. Even if he were to do that, I would have no objection, but then it's easy for me to say that as "Bandbox".
Posted by: Bandbox | Tuesday, 01 June 2021 at 11:21 PM
No problem
Posted by: Ramón | Wednesday, 02 June 2021 at 01:24 AM
No problem from me. I'd be flattered.
Posted by: Peter Croft | Wednesday, 02 June 2021 at 02:46 AM
No concern, if I commented it was intended to be a public statement. Especially no concern for Ctein.
Posted by: Philip Lorentz | Wednesday, 02 June 2021 at 02:50 AM
NO PROBLEM
Posted by: Thomas Mc Cann | Wednesday, 02 June 2021 at 04:33 AM
It seems as if the majority of the feedback has been “ok to republish”. Additionally the comments are made in the context of the reader who posted the comment. I would be concerned that comments could be “cherry-picked” by the guest author on their new site. And so while I have no issue with the guest author republishing the column on the new site I feel that the original comments should not be used. Astute readers could always go back to the original column and comments since nothing ever truly disappears from the internet.
Posted by: Michael T | Wednesday, 02 June 2021 at 08:37 AM
No problem at all, given your caveats. Anything any of us writes online should be assumed to be public anywhere.
Posted by: John Sarsgard | Wednesday, 02 June 2021 at 08:58 AM
I wouldn’t mind but why doesn’t this mystery person let you let us know who he/she is and which blog posts/comments are being re-published and commenters here could then go take a look and if they were uncomfortable with the situation they could notify the mystery blogger who would then presumably remove the comment. Since you trust this blogger enough to ask the question and presumably allow the situation they probably are trustworthy enough to remove a comment when asked.
Posted by: Swoquich | Wednesday, 02 June 2021 at 09:50 AM
What is the perceived value of republishing with comments in their entirety vs. republishing without comments, and linking back to the original (with comments)? In the former case you're losing potential traffic. In the latter, you're potentially gaining. Does the republishing author fully acknowledge your generosity if you allow comment reproduction? Because I don't see how you can benefit in that scenario.
Posted by: nextSibling | Wednesday, 02 June 2021 at 11:17 AM
I usually do not comment very much, sometimes being a not a native english speaker makes it difficult.
Anyway, just in case I have no problem with it.
Posted by: robert quiet photographer | Wednesday, 02 June 2021 at 02:01 PM
No problem with me, he can copy anything he likes that I've said on the comments to his articles, and redeploy it on his own website unmodified.
Since I know who it is, I know that the presentation will be accurate, complete and faithful to the original posting and context.
Posted by: John Holland | Wednesday, 02 June 2021 at 08:50 PM
While my comments aren't of interes, in general I would say 'no'. As others already mentioned it's about the context. I can imagine republishing the article/post and as a PS include a redacted set of the interesting comments. That set would only be a small subset of all the given comments and therefore easier to manage. When it's about republishing the post including all comments, then a link to the original article with some introductory lines would suffice.
While all content posted online is freely available to read and copy this does not make it 'rights', legal or otherwise.
I guess the main point is that this is too generic a question to be able to give a simple answer.
Posted by: Lars Jansen | Thursday, 03 June 2021 at 04:27 AM
From a legal perspective this raises some interesting questions. Technically anything you create - from a shopping list on the back of an envelope to a 3,000 page novel is copyright and cannot be reproduced without permission. But if you post to an online forum, for example, then (certainly under UK law) since this is in a public forum there will be an implied licence for others to reproduce for comment, rebuttal etc. Twitter is the best example - posting on Twitter almost certainly comes with an expectation or hope that someone will re-tweet and thus disseminate your wisdom thoughout the world.
Posting a comment on your private blog is potentially a different matter. Undoubtedly there is an implied licence for you as the blog owner to quote and comment on the posting and for others to do the same on the blog. But copying your response and publishing in a different environment might arguably be an infringement..
As I retired barrister I would have enjoyed arguing both sides. But I suspect that a UK Judge would come down on the side of this being a legitimate exercise of the implied licence argument. But then who knows in the USA - like the Past it is a different country and they do things differently there. Anyway an interesting question. One word of advice if a lawyer ever tells you your case is "interesting" run a mile - it just means that it is going to cost you a fortune and he or she is going to have a lot of fun running it.
Posted by: Philip Flower | Thursday, 03 June 2021 at 06:08 PM
Go wild.
Eolake
Posted by: Eolake Stobblehouse | Thursday, 03 June 2021 at 06:38 PM
No problem here, although I don't recall posting a comment on a Ctein post. (He indicated in his newsletter that he was concerned about this issue.)
Posted by: scott kirkpatrick | Friday, 04 June 2021 at 02:37 PM
No problem at all.
Posted by: Carsten Bockermann | Saturday, 05 June 2021 at 04:05 AM