In the interest of not causing any problems for this site, I have posted the information elsewhere.
April 5, 2023
56
-
-
The uploaded PDFs of the articles are a violation of IMDB.com, Inc.'s copyright and should be removed.
-
The Internet Movie Database? I think I'm missing something here.
-
Exactly 😂
-
As unexpected as it may be, IMDB.com, Inc. (an Amazon company) is identified as the copyright owner of the content at dpreview.com: www.dpreview.com/misc/termsandconditions
-
Removal of copyright-infringing posts is another reason why we need moderators. Otherwise, DPRevived will be very short-lived :(.
-
-
I don't think there's any question of whether or not we need moderators. The real issue is how the moderators see their roles.
-
Sure, but in the end it's only passing the copyright issue onto someone else. On the other hand, since I helped Richard with those articles, and didn't ever sign a copyright release, I might have a claim somewhere.
-
Yes. I suggest we have a small DPRevived founder board that assigns and oversees moderators and ensures that they do not overstep the mission of DPRevived. The role of a moderator can be tuned as we go.
-
In my opinion, the post does not need to be removed. I do think it would be appropriate to remove the copyrighted content that was uploaded with the post.
I am also of the opinion that requests such as this are how we help each other to be good members of a new community. It's a form of self-moderation...nothing official or formal. Just folks looking out for each other.
That's what prompted me to make the request and I hope that's how it is received.
-
It has been. The links don't go anywhere now.
That's absolutely as it should be. In fact that could be a mission statement for moderators, 'just folks looking out for each other'.
-
Good moderators will carry out their assignments according to the guidelines and policies of the site management. They should understand and agree to work within those constraints before they sign up. If they can't agree to do that, once the policies are set, they shouldn't sign up. There needs to be some moderator QC process, too.
-
Agreed on all counts. The question is in the end, what are the guidelines and policies, and whether they are conducive to good moderation. I'm working on them, and when done they will be put out for scrutiny, comment and if necessary amendment of the whole community - so we get sign-in from everyone. I also can't see why the moderators' guidance shouldn't be open.
-
While DPRevived is, ahem, intimate, we could use "Don't be evil" guidance :). That will stop working once DPRevived has grown much more.
-
Shoot first ask questions later. lol
Seriously: For now… I think that each and every forum / subforum should be self policing.
Everyone manages their daily life (crises) and their affairs without the input of a hierarchical manager.If things cannot be worked out amicably between posters, then the team should intervene.
Also, I would not implement a report icon aka radio-button for each post or thread… too many false positives. lolMaybe to begin with, proactively monitor / moderate the open forum if it turns into the Wild West!
This is a new dawn fellas.
Edit: "Fellas", which comes from "fellow", is considered to be a gender-neutral word.
-
Issue resolved :-)
-
Your unconditional blanket statement saying the information is in breach of copyright is just plain nonsense and another example of why I treat legal advice from wannabe internet lawyers as total dribble.
Had you actually taken the time to get your facts straight before posting by actually reading the T&Cs in the link you posted you would have seen that publishing the material is not in breach of copyright if prior permission was granted.
This matter is now closed and no further correspondence will be entered into by me :-)
