Home : Blogs : ActiveRain Real Estate Network : The Official ActiveRain Blog

Who owns the content on ActiveRain?

This is a question that has increasingly come up from members of the ActiveRain community. Who owns the content that has been published to ActiveRain? The short answer is...

The person who published the content whether it's a blog post, a comment, a picture or a video owns the content (providing they were the owner in the first place).

We see ourselves as a forum and publishing tool for real estate professionals. In the future we plan to create syndication relationships with 3rd party media outlets allowing our members to get the widest reach possible for their message. We believe that we create a lot of value for our members by providing these channels. With that in mind we want to make sure the control is in the members hands about where the content ultimately gets published, whether it's localism or a 3rd party partner site. If any member feels it's no longer in their interest to have their content on the ActiveRain Real Estate Network, they are always free to delete it.

This ActiveRain community is built upon the foundations of trust and transparency with our members. We know full well what would occur if this trust was violated.

Update: The Terms of Service outlining this is now available...

Posted by ActiveRain Real Estate Network on 09/28/2007 04:24 PM

Comments (75)

75 Comments on Who owns the content on ActiveRain?

SEP

2007

You go guy !! Thanks, been a rough few months, huh ?

Thanks Matt. Hey...while we're talking about our content and content on other websites....can you folks put up yet another post in regards to copying and pasting other peoples content. Some have commented that it is okay to copy another's content completely and post it as long as they give the person credit. I was under the impression that MY content was mine anyway and surely would not want people copying it only to claim it as a post written here (even though they're giving credit) Hope I didn't go too off topic..just trying to get clarification on "content" and MINE.

P.S. Thank you for all YOU folks do, have done, and will continue to do for all of us.

Matt - Thanks for the clarification. That is what I had always thought, but lately you just don't know until it is stated specifically! (Does anybody ever really read those "terms and conditions of use" agreements?!)

PS - Congratulations on passing the 50K users mark yesterday!

Matt, thanks for providing this important message to the community as a whole. It is much appreciated to receive some guidance from above. The trust and transparency that you have created with your company is a laudable model.

Once on Active rain, what search engines and other sites does the content reach?

This is good to know. Because on You Tube, when you upload a video, you give up your rights!

Matt, had a start up in LA in the late '80's. Was a co-founder, and became SR VP Marketing. Had a successful IPO after about a year into it. Wrote the biz plan for it, and all of the funding collateral. Had lots of atty's for patents, NDA's, contracts... etc.

Read with particular interest the news and filings of yesterday. Have already commented there. And know you can't.

Very much like the idea of a good, built-in syndication interface. Have not focused down on what that might mean, or how it would work.

Us owning our content here is interesting. It doesn't have to be that way, and there's all sorts of boilerplate and disclaimers you could have had each member sign off on to join to lay claim to it, which would have been the case with tha bums. It's the high road you're continuing to take.

Am itching to see the fur fly now that you've let your bulldogs loose.

Best...

Matt...

That smile was for you :)

Thought I better come back and clarify that :)

TLW...ROAR!

Matt, We've met and we have spoken. I have never doubted your intentions. Keep up the good work.

Matt - Thanks for the update - You've been in my thoughts - Hope there's nothing but great stuff in the future for you guys. Thanks for always treating us with respect and keeping us posted - it's appreciated and why we do TRUST you!!! You guys rock!

That is not strictly true. Pictures for one thing, unless the person has take the time to copy write it are not protected from being used by someone else. It has been put out into the public domain and as such needs to be copy write protected if you don't want someone else to use it.

In the interests of complete transparency I have a question. You say: The person who published the content whether it's a blog post, a comment, a picture or a video owns the content. You then go on to say that you see yourself as a publishing tool for real estate professionals. You further go on to indicate that a member will have the choice where the post ultimately gets published.

If the person publishing owns the content, "WHO IS THE PUBLISHER?" is it the Author, ActiveRain, Localism or the 3rd party publisher?

Hi Laurie...I'm anticipating the answer to that good question. (It's so easy for legaleze to confuse, isn't it?)

The person can't refer to AR. AR is not the publisher but a publishing tool...a tool being similar to any publishing program or platform, such as radio, hardware or software. That's how I read it. The person must be the author.

based on copyright laws as I understand them, something is automatically copywritten as soon as you write it.

As long as you can prove you wrote it first, you win.

Registered Copyright is another matter. While the above still applies, it has additional protection under law once registered, as it has been officially recorded therefore the time is proven.

Marc, I am with you on that one.

I guess that answers that.

good clarification Matt.

Lauri and Joey,

Maybe publishing tool wasn't the best descriptor. Distribution channel may have been clearer. Although Joey's answer certainly clarifies the use of publishing tool.

"The person can't refer to AR. AR is not the publisher but a publishing tool...a tool being similar to any publishing program or platform, such as radio, hardware or software. That's how I read it. The person must be the author."

The author is the person who writes the article and publishes it. ActiveRain is the tool by which you would accomplish this.

Matt, count me in as another user who is thankful you clarified this, and also grateful for all that you and the others have done for us here.

Okay - so who owns the rights to the comments? Are these mine or do they belong to the person to whom whose article my comments are referring to? Never-mind - just being foolish... Good points though.

Sally - I believe what you are referring to would be plagiarism - either way it is wrong...

Hi Matt - thank you for writing this post to clarify this issue. I thnk there have been many of late wondering exactly this, and now with lawsuits public info, many of us were getting concerned about ownership of our own writings.

Many thanks again,
Ann

Funny Phillip. :) I just want clarification for all the justifiers who are claiming it's okay to do so....as long as they give credit to the person who wrote the WHOLE article.

Matt - thank you for clarifying the issue, a couple of comments I have read made me question whether the posts where mine or not. Keep up the good work.

Sally,

Regarding your question..............ActiveRain's stance is that it is not ok to re-publish the content of another person without the consent of that person. The way to go about making readers aware of something that an author finds interesting is to link to the original article. Even with permission, the points will be removed.

I'll have a post next week regarding all the in's and out's.

Matt & Bob,

I thought it was important to ask that question and have it clearly clarified based on comments being made throughout the blog world today regarding ownership of content. Thank you.

You folks have a done a great job of making this such a wonderful forum for sharing knowledge and for keeping it clean and honorable. Thank you for the hard work.

Thanks for this post Matt, reading the comments has also been interesting and educational.

Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the clarification

Excellent, and timely, blog post in light of the recent news of a pending sale that went bad.

Good to hear that when you guys do sell, we still own our content! Kudos AR!!!

Matt - Jonathan explained this to me today and I was very happy to hear that. All of a sudden I felt the rug being pulled from under me - but the reality is that you guys have been stand up guys from the beginning. Thanks for clearing that up and good luck with that law suit! (even if you are not allowed to comment.)

I have always favored the WIN-WIN-WIN approach. Thanks again for shedding light on this issue. Hear's to the next 50K membership and beyond...

Thanks Bob. Need that...a big post... :)

Sorry, but no ...

Matt, I was supportive of the community before it became a caricature of itself. I'm not necessarily AR now, though I fully believe it's jumped the shark in terms of providing useful content.

Having said that, and keeping in mind I'm not an attorney ... we the bloggers own the content in as much as we can do with it what we will. Active Rain, however, is the publisher. The SEO benefit comes through Active Rain.

And at some stage, some right to the content must have been conferred to AR otherwise you folks wouldn't have been able to attempt to sell it off in whole. Realizing you can't get into specifics, I find it incredibly hard to believe that the content would have been wiped clean before the sale to Move.

Move wasn't paying for a software system (and if they were, they're more stupid than I imagine.) And as your complaint implies, they were looking for something more - the content.

If I truly owned the content, when was I going to receive my share of the money from Move?

You're splitting hairs and people are just nodding along without giving thought to the whole thing.

SHOW THEMS THE MONEY!!!

What about the sitcom rights?

Excellent, Matt. It is the continued communication, the commitment to and advancement of the culture, and the dedication that has created the wonderful AR community. I hope it can continue as we grow larger, since size so often impacts culture and communication, often in negative ways.

Thanks!

Jeff

I own all that junk?

Sheesh. Time to proofread, edit, go back to school........

Thanks, Matt!

Thanks Matt!

okay so how can i export my content from your service if i own it. Also, you guys don't even have a delete feature on my acct.

The question of who owns the content on AR is very interesting. If the AR team has some thoughts on this it would be very instructive. I would guess that those who post should copyright their "original" material in order to protect themselve -- perhaps with giveing AR permittion to publish the material. I think some imput from any attorney would be most helpful on this topic -- do any of our AR attorney members want to comment?

I've been here since January and have never worried about your intentions. Thank you for the great service.

"I've been here since January and have never worried about your intentions."

It's not like they told you that they were trying to sell it to Move since November.

Thank you Matt. I had wondered if the comments could or would be removed if the circumstances so dictated. I am a member of another blog where a personwas admonished and the more she defended herself the more severe the admonishment by members.

SEP

2007

Thank you, Matt. I had wondered about this after reading the recent articles, lawsuit info etc.

Thanks Matt.......

Duane Hosek in the Black Hills of South Dakota

Jonathan brings up an excellent point. How can Active Rain suggest that we own the content and then suggest that they will syndicate news feeds as a revenue tool.

Is Active Rain implicitly "leasing" the content (since it is removable) for no cost?

You can't sell, lease or bargain something you have no legal rights to. Somehow, somehwre, someway, Active Rain has procured the rights to profit off of my posts. I have no problem with that but would care to have it defined.

It seems to me that we all need to remember that these guys really are not at liberty to expound on this subject in its entirety. Although, all of this has been a lot to swallow the past couple of days, I for one would like to give the guys time...I think we owe them time and when the time is right I believe that all will be revealed. Give em a break...

As a writer I am pleased to see this come from above. I do appreciate all that you do in making this forum open and available but the essence of the written word belong to those who make the effort to put them into understandable terms for the masses. We all have our personal way of saying things and that is the beauty of this system, that you don't feel the need to own the fruits of our labor because you do own the forum.

Thank you. with due respect a happy Rainer.

It seems to me that we all need to remember that these guys really are not at liberty to expound on this subject in its entirety

That's not entirely true, Gena. Active Rain went public with the details of the lawsuit to its stakeholders yesterday in order to clarify why they sued Move.com. That pubic disclosure was clearly to garner favor from its membership; it split the community. Many users felt betrayed by the peddling of their content.

The content issue was addressed last fall when I asked the question- Matt was clear then about what he reiterates now.

Going public with the specific details of the complaint opened them up to criticism and reopened this query about content ownership. I applaud them for addressing this issue but they aren't going far enough in their explanation. If the users are specific owners of the content, then the scope of Active Rain's complaint and subsequent lawsuit against Move.com is limited to the membership roster and the "forum".

Having defined the content ownership as the user's, Active Rain should specifically define the authority they have to use such content. (I think it's implied consent as a tradeoff for member's use of the forum to publish).

Nonetheless, questions about this statement from the membership are appropriate and begs specific answers.

Devils Advocate: So at the end of a battle royale with Move.com, if Active Rain were to lose, could Move take over and own all of the content? Their purse is huge, they can just litigate to the death, no?

Brian,

In my attempt to only address the questions related to the content ownership issue, I am having a tough time understanding exactly what your question is.

I believe this is your question:

"Having defined the content ownership as the user's, Active Rain should specifically define the authority they have to use such content. (I think it's implied consent as a tradeoff for member's use of the forum to publish)."

Would you mind providing some specific examples of how we might use the content? I will comment on each example type. That might lead to some greater specification.

Brian & Jonathan,

In the next year we plan to create syndication partnerships with third party online publishers. Only content selected to be syndicated by the content's creator will be syndicated.

We believe many of our members will choose to syndicate because this additional exposure will bring them more business. Publishers will agree to do this because it will provide them with more places to place advertising. At some point AR will take part in a portion of the ad revenue from these syndication relationship.

Ideally it will be a Win-Win-Win like Barry stated above.

Glad to hear that the invisible AR gods recognize the efforts that have been put into blogging are "their own".

Jonathan - sounds like an interesting plan.

As for how AR might use the content ... I think a possible buyout was one way. What makes AR unique is its membership and the content contained herein. The Q&A already exists elsewhere (Trulia Voices). The ability to blog for free exists elsewhere (Wordpress, RealTown, etc.) I can't imagine a company was going to pay eight figures for a proprietary points system.

We own our own content ... to a degree. I also own my own car but I don't have to worry that someone's going to sell my car but still allow me to use it.

The balance here is delicate, IMO. If people ever were charged to be here (and milking agents truly is Move's specialty), you'd see a stampede out the door.

Syndicated content is grossly overrated, and the quality of most of the content on AR isn't worth syndicating. That which is would serve the authors better by publishing it themselves.

Do you plan on sharing the revenue gained from syndication with the content creators?

"The person who published the content whether it's a blog post, a comment, a picture or a video owns the content (providing they were the owner in the first place).

We see ourselves as a forum and publishing tool for real estate professionals."

It will interesting to see if that is what MOVE thought they were buying.

Would you mind providing some specific examples of how we might use the content? I will comment on each example type. That might lead to some greater specification

In a sale of the entire platform to, say...Zillow.com

As a SEO-enhancer for an up and coming online brokerage; a syndicated blog feed for say...Redfin.com

In a revenue sharing agreement as a feed for say...Trulia.com

Brian and Jonathan: It would seem that the author might be given the opportunity to opt in or out of syndication with a particular vendor.

Zillow? Probably.

Redfin? Not unless I could choose the articles:-)

Trulia?: Probably.

If none of it makes sense, authors can delete their blog articles on Active Rain. (Can you do so on other blogging platforms?) If one wishes to make direct income from blogging activities, there are plenty of places to go.

I would love the opportunity to do targeted syndication and would welcome the opportunity to broaden my audience and client base.

I would love the opportunity to do targeted syndication and would welcome the opportunity to broaden my audience and client base.

Aha! Good points, Roberta. However, you give up the write to pick and choose how and which content is distributed by Active Rain unless you specifically delete articles that you don't want to se seen.

Let me give you an example. If active Rain were to establish a feed with redfin, I'd use this article to show how full-service agents really didn't like to work with discounters (it's all in the comments).

If I were, Bankrate, trying to show how mortgage originators won't disclose yield Spread, I'd definitely use this article

Both would be an inaccurate depiction of how you and I do business but it wouldn't matter. Without control of your content, it can be used to augment business models that are not consistent with our thinking.

and we can't say that the boys at Active Rain would never do that, they already have tried to get into bed with a company most members don't respect.

Where is the Terms of Use page???? I Googled for it and can't find it.

"I would love the opportunity to do targeted syndication and would welcome the opportunity to broaden my audience and client base."

You can still do that. And the syndicaters can just as easily cut rev share deals with people like you and Brian, as opposed to AR, for less than what AR would want. You would remain in control of your content as well.

"you give up the write to pick and choose how and which content is distributed by Active Rain"

This is an excellent point and begs the question, "Who will pick and choose?".

"Where is the Terms of Use page????"

There isn't one that spells out user content. That's the problem.

It is good to know that you still believe that we own our data.

Whew!

"Aha! Good points, Roberta. However, you give up the write to pick and choose how and which content is distributed by Active Rain unless you specifically delete articles that you don't want to se seen."

Brian, that's the plan is we want to let members pick where content gets distributed. We know full well the reaction if we just decided to syndicate the content which is very valuable to our members somewhere without their permission, we'd have a revolt on our hands. So why would we do it?

We've always been very sensitive to the relationship between members, our content, and us, and that's not going to change in the future. And any companies we've have business discussions with in the past and in the future have always had to accept this reality.

SEP

2007

Matt,

Thank you for posting this and engaging in Q&A. I think that is all we really want, to have our concerns addressed.

I posted Are You Worth $60,000? and all I really wanted is this discussion. But I had to go to Bloodhound Blog to find it. Why not a group email to all members when something this important is being discussed?

Bill Roberts

Matt, thanks you for the post! Since I write for www.RealtyTimes.comI was curious about content rights etc... Thank you so much for the explanation!

OCT

2007

Matt -I really appreciated the explanation. I was positive that this was the answer that would be given.

That is good to know. I have seen this asked several times but not seen it answered so clearly.

OCT

2007

So does this mean that we "should" or "shouldn't" add a "copywrite" blurb on the bottom of our posts? I've been toying with this idea, but haven't really come up with a reason to do (or not do) so.

OCT

2007

Matt.... I think you have said this from day one.... I am sure it's not easy from your side and others that are part of your staff, keeping up with all of this. No matter the differences that we have had in the past, you all have done an excellent job. Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention again.

jeff belonger

OCT

2007

Thanks for reassuring news and perspective, Matt. When one has dozens of articles and hundreds of photos out, this is good to know.

Jeannie, you can add the copyright blurb to the bottom of you're post if you want, it may help if a spam site tries to rip off the content, but technically you don't need to add it for your content to be copyrighted.

Update: The complete Terms of Service legally outlining this can now be found at, http://activerain.com/action/default/terms_of_service