For reasons surpassing understanding, for the past four days I’ve engaged in an email exchange with a Scans_Daily denizen who seemed to want to have a genuine dialogue, but apparently didn’t. After four days they were just as resolved as ever that I was a big old meanie because I thought perhaps Marvel’s copyright was being violated and said something to Marvel about it. Yet abruptly they didn’t want to talk anymore when I queried about the following notice on their website and asked if it didn’t make them a teensy bit hypocritical:
Official legal notice
If you wish to publish any material from this journal anywhere else, you must ask my permission first. This applies to any form of publication, whether individual items or the whole journal via RSS feed to another website. I am the author of this journal: the contents are © (name omitted) 2000-2009.
It should be noted that I don’t have a copyright notice on this site (at least, I don’t think I do.) The reason is that I consider this a venue for my opinions, and I don’t want to do anything to impede anyone’s desire to mention those opinions elsewhere. By the same token, plenty of people feel the need to protect their IP by putting a copyright notice on their sites. I totally understand and respect that. What I have little patience for are those who are quick to protect their own interests while having no respect for the same rights of others.
PAD
• 
Anyone who still wants to gripe about SD, now, isn’t interested in having a real dialogue.
You’re probably right. I was hoping that, as the cliche goes, time heals all wounds, and I thought perhaps that given the distance from the event (to say nothing of the community restarting bare weeks later) that there might have been some willingness to listen now. But apparently not.
.
Still, the hopeless causes are frequently the most interesting ones.
.
PAD
Sounds like a politician wanting Us (the people) to do things that they ( the government) won’t do.
There are STAR TREK fans who are still upset with William Shatner over his “Get a life!” sketch on SNL many years ago. For some folks, time does heal all wounds; for others, they’ll not just hold a grudge but also hold it tightly to their heart until they die.
I’d respond to these people, but really, Shatner said it all already.
I’ll tell you one thing, though: Shatner was at a convention (Creation con, I think) and someone asked this long, rambling, pointless and insanely technical question. And Shatner just stared at the guy, not knowing where to start. And a couple of people shouted, “Say it!” and within seconds a chorus of “Say it! SAY IT!” was slamming through the hall.
.
And Shatner held up a hand and said calmly, “No, no…I’m not going to say it.” And people actually moaned in disappointment as Shatner then tried his best to give an actual answer.
.
So some people may still carry a grudge, but a lot of ’em embraced it as being dead on.
.
For what it’s worth, though, Jimmy Doohan LOVED getting the technical questions. The little picky things about the Enterprise. He felt people expected him to have the answers, to BE Scotty, and dámņëd if he didn’t do his best to accommodate.
.
PAD
People who want William Shatner to keep quoting a line he said years ago on Saturday Night Live should get a life. I mean, for crying out loud, SNL is just a TV show! 😛
(Since humour doesn’t always come across too well on the Internet, I want to stress that my jab at SNL fans is meant in the most playful possible manner).
Scans daily doesn’t want to let just anyone copy their stuff??? Oh, that’s funny.
.
I’d bet that they are following your blog with an eagle eye, the better to lambaste you should you ever say something they can use to portray you as the eeeeeevil guy they think you are, so I’m sure there will be someone coming along to explain this…any minute now…
In the interest of clarity, Bill, no, that copyright notice was from a separate website of someone who is a member of Scans_Daily. In other words, it’s okay for them to fight to protect their IP…but not okay for Marvel to fight for theirs, and certainly not okay for me to let Marvel know about it.
.
PAD
Ah. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
And it’s not like intellectual dishonesty is limited to the Internet. About five minutes watching any cable news channel will prove that.
Over at Topless Robot, the host posts “erotic” fan fiction each week in order to make fun of it. Evidently last week the author of the fanfic found out about it and lost his mind. He didn’t seem to understand that: A) when he posts something online to be read, he shouldn’t get upset when it is; and B) he doesn’t own the characters to begin with, so the louder he complains, the more likely he is to alert the actual copyright holders to what he’s doing with their properties.
Oh my God IT NEVER STOPS.
Look, I’m a member of Scans Daily. I like Scans Daily. And I’m probably the only one left who is a very vocal fan of yours. That said, yeah, anyone from there who still wants to talk about it with you is just being the bitter ex-girlfriend who “wants closure.”
PEOPLE, IT IS NEVER GOING TO HEAL IF YOU DON’T STOP PICKING AT IT.
*sigh* Peter, just…try to ignore it from now on. Probably the only one over there who still respects you is me, and I’m not about to bring up something that happened long enough ago that it doesn’t freaking matter anymore.
Yeah, I know, you’re right. It’s the smart attitude to have. Unfortunately no one ever accused me of being smart.
.
PAD
I liked Scans Daily when it would post a page or two, or even just a particularly striking panel, with a little note of “go buy the book to see the rest!” I managed to find a few really good books that way. But after a while it seemed like people wanted to post more and more of the books.
At some point it crossed a line and I stopped reading. But for awhile there it was doing a great service, introducing me to new stuff. I wish it would go back to that.
As for the contradiction… humans contradict themselves constantly. It’s fair to point it out, but don’t expect the person to be happy when you prove them to be a hypocrite.
As for the contradiction… humans contradict themselves constantly.
.
That’s because we’re vast and contain multitudes.
.
It’s fair to point it out, but don’t expect the person to be happy when you prove them to be a hypocrite.
.
True, but on the other hand, they weren’t happy with me in the first place, so…
.
PAD
I’ve had an entire site or two of mine literally copy/pasted by other people who proceeded to toss their own copyright notice into it. Buncha moroons….
The best for me was when I received via an email a piece that someone said, “I thought with your sense of humor you would find this entertaining.”
.
I read it and wrote back and said, “Well, your instincts were right in that I was entertained. I liked it even better when I first wrote it several years ago.”
.
It was the Disney Heroines Roundtable column from “But I Digress.” My byline and the copyright line had been removed. The guy was stunned when I told him that I was the one who had written it in the first place. He said, “Geez, because that’s been circulating all over the place.”
.
PAD
Don Markstein has been fighting a running battle for years with sites that seem to feel it’s perfectly okay to take his stuff from his Toonopedia and repost it with no credit – or even taking the credit.
.
More than one has gotten indignant when he contacted him, and ranted about “fair use” and informed he ought to be glad to get the free publicity and…
.
oh
.
Never mind.
This happened to Dave Barry a lot in the early days of the Internet (and for all I know, still does). For that matter, it happened to him in a small junior high paper in Oklahoma. Unfortunately for that guy, I happened to get a copy of that paper…
Actually, just out of curiosity, I goggled “Disney Heroine Roundtable.” I found site after site that had it without any attribution.
PAD
That may change over time, I guess, as sites move up and down the list. My google search returned 5 sites with the transcript. The top one didn’t have your name, but the other 4 did.
I’m possibly doing something wrong though.
Well, I just checked it now. I also turned up five sites: Geocities, Visions Fant and humornet all had it without attribution. The remaining two had transcripts that appeared to be lifted directly from this site and thus included the attribution.
.
PAD
I used to say if I had a dime for every interview of mine that was reprinted, I’d own the internet by now. It used to bug me when some site would reprint an article, often scanning the piece in its entirety, but nowadays I try to be philosophical and just let it go. But that being said, I can’t help wondering if it was that sort of blatant ‘reprinting’ that eventually led to the demise of such genre magazines as Starlog, TV Zone and Starburst to name a few, who almost certainly saw their sales shrinking as a result of this behavior.
To be fair, I’m sure most of those sites thought they were performing some sort of public sevice by allowing fans to read those interviews without having to go out and buy the entire magazine, but the result is that many of those magazines no longer exist; thus there is now nothing to reprint.
I miss Starlog…..
Aim more carefully and keep your head down on the follow-through…
The credit issue is very infuriating; I’ve had people post my interviews onto message boards without removing my name, but even so, the other board residents compliment the POSTER on the interview, as though the time and effort that went into bringing it to them was all his.
I wonder if part of it might be the way people see the internet. Not see as in the overall concept, but see as in on the screen in their living room/bedroom/office/phone/whatever. “It’s in my screen, it’s my computer, hey, it must be MINE! I can do whatever I want with it!” Not quite so intentionally diabolical, really. They post something because they think it’s {INSERT ADJECTIVE HERE} and what’s the harm?
I think the internet is a fantastic resource, but the two things that continue to bug me are 1) as we’re talking about here is the feeling of universal ownership, that folks can post anything without credit or attribution, and 2)the complete lack of accountability. One aspect of this message board that I really appreciate is that most of the posters actually use their own names. I tend to respect people’s opinions when they actually back them up with their names, unlike most sites where it seems to be okay to say anything and everything you want and retreat behind a pseudonym. Case in point: the recent lawsuit where somebody thought it was perfectly fine to call a model a skank and a ho, but was terribly affronted when her name was finally disclosed to said model, as if THAT was the crime. Maybe every website and person posting on it should have their ISP info attached to it; if nothing else, it might make for a more civil discourse.
I couldn’t agree more, Joe. And what’s really hilarious is when anonymous posters accuse pros of not wanting to be “held accountable” or not being willing to “deal with the consequences” of their actions. The irony of posting from hiding being able to lob insults and brickbats, calumnies and libels, while sniping at others who put their opinions out there regardless of the consequences, is just staggering.
.
PAD
I believe the fact that I know who is talking is one of the reasons that fortysomethings like me are taking over Facebook.
The difference between a conversation with a handle and posts that are attributed doesn’t seem like a big deal until you flip back and forth between the two.
Hmm.
For the most part I agree about the aliases thing. It’s definitely something that can be abused. The tricky thing is i can see a couple of instances where someone might legitimately want to use an alias, beyond it just being seen as fun.
One reason is that someone is a movie star. Samuel jackson and nicolas Cage are both known to be big comic book fans. It’s highly unlikely that they’re among the people with weird aliases who hurl insults, but it’s conceivable that they are among the many who use aliases and play nice. in such a case they might want to post without the board becoming about them.
Another reason is that the person doesn’t want to be tracked down, either because they have a stalker/person with a vendetta, or because there’s some pretty strange people on the internet. Most discussion boards don’t publish e-mails but a real name can be a starting point for someone wanting to do a bit of detective work.
Finally, and sadly, maybe they’ve been physically/emotionally abused a lot and hiding behind an alias is the only way they feel safe interacting with the world. In this case the alias may provide a baby step for them to be able to rejoin society in some fashion.
Perhaps a compromise is best: people can use aliases as long as they behave, but when they sign up for a board they are notified that being “outted” by the admin, even on the boards themselves, is a possible penalty for misbehaving. That way the people who really feel the need for an alias can have tha cushion as long as they play nice.
I can think of two more reasons.
.
I, myself, use the name “Thenodrin” because it is what my original AOL handle was back in 1993, and before that it was my D&D character and so most if not all of my old high school and college friends recognize it. I’ve been found by some old high school buddies who thought to Google “Thenodrin” rather than my given name.
.
And, so, since I’ve used “Thenodrin” exclusively across so many different boards, blogs, and sites, I’m actually a bit recognizable. I’ve had people ask me at conventions if I’m the same “Thenodrin” as on the Internet.
.
A fourth reason would be if you had a, shall we say, “fictional” real name. I have a customer whose real name is Michael Moore (and, since he works in the health care industry, he is “sicko” of people making fun of his name.)
.
And, one of my best friends is named “Peter Parker.” He’s been kicked out of Internet forums for, “using an obvious alias.” He was allowed back when he “confesed” that his name was “Larry Durant,” a name he stole from the movie Darkman.
.
Theno
In my early days online I used a “handle ” because I thought that it was the expectation. I soon went to using my real name.
I think that if you do use an alias that your behavior should be impeccable so that you are not abusing the right to use another name. If you want to hurl insults or abuse others, have the balls to be you.
On most places that i post, i use the screen name “Fairportfan”, which i originally coined about ten years ago because i was posting reviews of several Fairport Convention albums on Amazon.
.
I make no secret of my real name – in fact, sometimes (when i’m reviewing a book by a friend – or by my brother [yes, the guy who writes the “Honor Harrington” books], say) i make a point of establishing my True Identity.
.
OTOH, in the places where i post/have posted with regularity, i have built up, over time, just as much of an identity and personality as “Fairportfan” as i have as “mike weber”.
.
I guess what i’m trying to say is that a name is a name – roses and all that – and it’s what you make of the name that’s important.
I use a screen name in some places because that’s the expectation. I use my real name here because that’s the expectation.
.
I’m not really convinced that real names make people less anonymous. At the college I went to, not only was there another Jason Bryant, there was another Jason M. Bryant. How do any of you know which one of those I am? You don’t even know what state I’m in or if that’s actually my name. I’m not the least bit more accountable than if I’d called myself codeguy like I do on other forums.
.
Maybe the “real name” people are a little older and don’t like the game of an assumed name as much. But that doesn’t mean the problematic people would suddenly become more mature if they used their own name. In the end, I’m no more accountable for what I say than someone calling himself Captain Tinsword, so I don’t think it helps to give the Captain a hard time for his choice of screen name.
Jason M Bryant said:
“You don’t even know what state I’m in…”
.
For the record, I am in the state of denial.
I use handles because my last name is really unusual and I wanted that extra layer of protection when I first got online. I don’t lie in my profiles, though, so the information is still available.
Back in 2000, my first message board was at dccomics.com and I decided I didn’t want some 14-year-old amped up on Mountain Dew calling me at 3:00 AM to argue about whether or not writer X was any good.
I personally think that there are legitimate reasons for aliases, as there are legitimate reasons for anonymity. Only recently have I been more open about my real name on the Internet, though I still have several aliases left intact. Just because asshats can post anonymously doesn’t mean everybody who posts anonymously is an asshat.
Frequently, i will post about an interesting piece i fond online; often i will repost the first paragraph (sometimes more excerpts from further down if it’s a long article).
But i always give full attribution and a link to the original post.
Have you looked into Creative Commons License? It might meet your needs of owning your blog opinions while giving people the flexibility to cite you (with credit). Its not bullet proof or anything, but might avoid some hassle.
Personally I don’t know why people of the web don’t follow the same rules they learned in junior high english and the rules of a bibliography of always crediting (or in this case linking) to your sources. If your sources so “no don’t use my stuff” then you honor that.
I looked into the Creative Commons license when I started putting large numbers of photos up at flickr.com. I decided I’d rather stick with the old C-in-a-circle copyright. I’ve granted permission to everyone who’s asked to use one of my photos in another venue, and haven’t charged anyone anything yet, but I still want to be asked first. That way I have the opportunity to say no, or just to say “Make sure you credit me and spell my name right.”
My response to the “information wants to be free” crowd is simple: How far do you think I’d get calling up my mortgage company and saying, “My house wants to be free?” Or calling Bank of America and saying, “All that stuff I’ve charged wants to be free?” Or going to the Dodge dealer and saying, “That blue Challenger wants to be free?”
I’ve used that angle as well. The response is always, “It’s not the same thing.” What that really means is that, as far as they’re concerned, the property of others isn’t really property. It has no monetary value, no real worth, while their own possessions DO have value and thus should not be subject to theft by others. Ultimately they define it as George Carlin did: “Did’ja ever notice that other people’s stuff is šhìŧ, but your šhìŧ is stuff?”
.
PAD
Owning a fan site, we often post news articles from other sites, but I make darn sure that not only is the source credited, but a link to that site is included. It is simple courtesy. It takes but a moment and in the long run makes for a better site.
I didn’t mean to hijack this discussion by talking about pseudonyms or ‘handles,’ which is just a pet peeve of mine, but both Mike Weber and Gene Hoyle have pretty much summer up what folks should be doing, which is to pay attention to fair use and attribution. And unless I’m very much mistaken, it was the issue of fair use that is actually behind the whole Scans Daily discussion. I’ve never actually visited the site, but am I correct in saying that?
PAD,
.
Before the revamp, the site did contain a copyright notice, to wit: that you owned the copyright to what you wrote and that the rest of us owned the copyright to what we wrote.
.
Joe Nazzaro, you may be right about the blatant reprinting of articles helping lead to the demise of Starlog and other magazines.
.
On a related note, I’m sure many people who post entire articles do it because they have a sense of entitlement, but I wonder how many do it because they’re lazy. It’s easier to copy and paste an article than to copy and paste a few select excerpts and then to include a link to the whole thing. There are more steps involved in doing it that way and these people are too busy (sarcasm mode engaged) to take the time to do that.
.
Along similar lines of laziness, in some boards, like the Yahoo and Google Groups, you’ll have a thread started by person A; person B replies and includes Person A’s entire post in his reply. And so on with persons C-Z. And yes, sometimes posts include an entire article copied and pasted from somewhere else on the net. For some reason– which probably boils down to laziness again– when people hit “reply”, they can’t be bothered to clear the previous comment from their reply (or at least only keep a key point to which they are specifically replying). It makes reading those threads a chore. I often don’t bother.
.
As to the use of a real name vs. an alias, obviously a real name lends gravitas, but some real names themselves may be aliases for all we know. As Jason M. Bryant (if that’s who he really is) points out. Myself, I think whether a person uses a proper name or an internet alias her or she will ultimately be judged by the quality of his or her words than what name is signed to those words. If “Clever Internet Name” offers consistent reasoned arguments about whatever topic is at hand, he or she will carry more weight (at least with me) than a “Joe Smith” who makes asinine and/or trollish comments.
.
Joe Nazzaro suggests having a person’s ISP information attached to their posts as a possible way of making online discourse more civil. That might work, though I’m sure someone would figure out a way to fake the ISP. It might also be nice (he said, as if really believing this would ever happen on a large scale) if people who used a “handle” signed with their real (first) name. Thus, “Clever Internet Name” would sign his posts as say, “Ted.”
.
Again, with regard to copying entire articles, that is a violation of copyright, though some people may do it because they’re lazy, not because they feel their entitled to do so. For those people, the proper form is to quote a brief excerpt, and then post a link to the original piece where people can then read the entire thing.
.
Getting through to the “we’re entitled” crowd will have its challenges, but maybe some of those who just don’t know any better can be educated.
.
Rick
On the subject of “Clever Internet Name” vs. real name, I think it should be pointed out that some forums, game sites, etc., frown upon using one’s real name when interacting with others, considering it personal information that could potentially be abused. I’ve actually gone round and round with the moderators of certain forums about signing posts with my real first name (which I do because some people assume I’m female from the “Penny” in my “Clever Internet Name”).
.
Chuck
Before the revamp, the site did contain a copyright notice, to wit: that you owned the copyright to what you wrote and that the rest of us owned the copyright to what we wrote.
.
Captain Irony is speechless…
.
PAD
PAD,
.
Not sure how to take your reply. You wrote that you didn’t think you had a copyright notice on the site, and I just mentioned that the site used to have one, something you may or may not have known– given what you’d written. And then I summed up what the notice had said. That’s all.
.
Rick
“It might also be nice (he said, as if really believing this would ever happen on a large scale) if people who used a “handle” signed with their real (first) name. Thus, “Clever Internet Name” would sign his posts as say, “Ted.””
.
Back in the day, when I was more active on various message boards, I *always* ‘signed’ it with my first name. If the board had an auto-sig option, I included it in the auto-sig (and would often thus have my name listed twice when I forgot there’s an auto-sig…), and if there was a “real name” option, I’d usually fill that out even when using a handle (a handle which I’ve been using since the middle ’90s on everything from AOL to gmail and hundreds of websites in between. LrdSlvrhnd, if anybody really cares 8-} ) so it was listed – “Kevin M. from NH.”
.
My real last name, though? Not gonna happen. It’s unusual enough that there are exactly two people with my last name in my state, and one of them is my uncle. I googled my first-and-last once, and was surprised when I came up with another by the same name. Oddly, he lived about three blocks from my oldest and closest internet friend, which freaked her out almost as much as it did me LOL
I avoid posting with my full name, as I discovered my unusual surname apparently makes me unique – when I Googled my name, every single hit was me. But, while I originally posted under a handle (and so on a few sites am still registered under that name), I now register as either my first name alone, or, if that’s taken, as my first name and initials.
On the subject of people lifting things from sites, a few years back Don at Toonopedia told me the script he used to make it harder for people to lift images and text from his site, so that I could apply it to my own reference site. A few weeks ago I got a particularly nasty e-mail from someone, calling me various names precisely because I’d made the effort to protect my site and thus made their attempt to steal my work a little harder for them. They didn’t sign their name, naturally, and when I replied, I found out that they’d used a webserver designed to send e-mails anonymously, so people can’t reply, set up to protect people from abusive partners and the like – so not only were they hiding behind the anonymity of the net, but they were misusing a system designed to protect people from abuse to be abusive to me without having to risk a purely verbal comeback. It was alright for them to call me various four letter names beginning with c and the like, but God forbid I be able to write back and tell them they were a jerk.
Rick, I’ve had more than one discussion in the past with people who thought it was perfectly okay to reprint an article in its entirety, or even scan the piece as it appeared. I tried to explain to them that I have to go through the trouble of setting up the interview, conducting the interview, transcribing it, writing it and editing it before handing it in. That article could be proofed by as many as four people before going to the art department where it is laid out, re-proofed for any last-minute corrections and finally going to the printer. Along the way, I get paid my fee (although I suppose that’s no longer true, as Starlog owes me several grand for outstanding work that was already printed, but that’s neither here not there) , the art department guy gets his salary as do my editors and of course there’s all the overhead for actually putting a magazine on the shelf. And then somebody who puts together his website from the comfort of his mom’s basement and takes that article, scans it and re-posts it on his site without paying a dime. The point I tried to make was this: without the writers actually creating the source material in the first place, these folks wouldn’t have anything to reprint, because they’ve never done the work to actually get their own interview. As Rick says, it’s hardly surprising that these magazines are collapsing, mainly because readers are now getting used to reading this material for free.
Joe,
.
Actually, I was agreeing with you that the blatant reprinting of articles online probably helped lead to Starlog’s demise.
.
Rick
Nothing to do with this post but…
“I like your spirit, Mr. Reilly. I wish we could clone you”.
Loooooooool!!! I just read this. You got my laugh of the day. Thanks a lot for this!!!
10 minutes later…
“Which gay man came here to sign?”
2nd laugh out loud. You’re killing me here ;-D
(Sorry for the out-of-topic comments)
Because I upload so many pictures to Wikimedia Commons under the free Attribution license, I don’t mind people using them; in fact, I’m flattered–it’s why I upload them. But the Attribution license requires that anyone using my pics properly attribute them to me. Unfortunately, I found a number of them without this. RealWorldHouses.com used my photos of the Brooklyn pier initially without attribution (They’ve since added it), and I usually notice one of my pics of comic book creators on the Big Apple Con’s site.
.
Up until today, my pics of Jim Califiore and Gene Colan were being used on their site without credit. Someone from the BAC told me a week ago they’d add it, but I went there just now, and while Gene Colan is no longer listed for the upcoming con (I guess he cancelled), my Califiore pic is still there without credit.
.
They’ve told me that they simply receive the pics from the guests themselves. From this I get the impression that some people think that anything on Wikipedia or its sister sites is in the public domain. But while some of it is, much of it is not, and is FREE-LICENSED. I wish people would read the copyright notices on the image pages, since they’re so ubiquitous.
.
Btw, speaking of pics, if anyone wants to see pics of Peter and other creators and authors from the Brooklyn Book Festival on Sunday, I just finished uploading them a little while ago to here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:2009_Brooklyn_Book_Festival
I don’t see it here now, but when the site started there was a disclaimer to the effect that you owned your words but not the comments, which were owned by the people who posted them. This was a nice switch from some sites I’d recently stopped posting on at the time (about.com, anyone?) that claimed ownership on all posts and comments to use however they see fit. I remember posting that I appreciated your position on that, and I still do. (I see Rick pointed that out above, but I still wanted to thank you for it and make my obligatory annual comment at the same time.)
Seriously? They tried to claim ownership of YOUR words as well? That’s pretty amazing.
.
PAD
It’s basically a cover-your-ášš tactic. They are the one’s putting up the website that people are writing on, so effectively they’re the publishers of whatever people write. That means they pay money to make it appear on people’s screens and they’re responsible for whatever appears on their site. If they own other people’s words, then they can remove offensive posts with no confusion about rights.
.
It’s probably more than is necessary, but I’m pretty sure that’s the reasoning behind it.
Jason, wouldn’t that however have also a possible negative legal effect — To explain: If they owned your comments, aren’t they responsible for the content of your comments — so that if a commentator e.g. advocates violence, they could be held responsible for advocating violence themselves, since it’s “their” comments?
That’s why they’re supposed to moderate the boards. It’s also why they have big, long terms of service agreements explaining to people that they’re not allowed to do stuff like that. Sure, nobody reads them, but the fact that the message board put that message up gives them a little cover-your-ášš on what the posters say, since they can show that they tried to keep people from saying stuff like that.
Seriously? They tried to claim ownership of YOUR words as well? That’s pretty amazing.
.
Not really. It seems that, eventually, most sites try something like this. There was a big brouhaha earlier this year over Facebook changing their TOS to something that more or less sounded like they were claiming all rights to anything on Facebook: your comments, your photos, etc.
.
Thankfully, Facebook users pushed back, and Facebook backed off.
About.com’s user agreement still states this as item 6:
“Any communication or material you post or transmit to the Service and/or the Sites is, and will be treated as, non-confidential and non-proprietary. You assume full responsibility for anything you post or transmit, and you grant About.com and its affiliates the right to edit, copy, publish and distribute any information or content you post or transmit for any purpose.”
If that doesn’t mean “We own your words” without coming right out and saying it, I’m not sure what does.