A Conversation for The Healing Power of Curry

Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 41

Arpeggio - Keeper, Muse, Against Sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular

Mikey, Lucinda,

I wish this could be resolved in a mature, adult, friendly fashion, too. smiley - sadface

Sadly, I don't see how that is possible, given some of Mr Jaynes' replies to you. His attitude was not suggestive of understanding or of acceptance. There are larger problems involved here.

I don't have the URLs, but the conversation thread at my 'space' called 'Question', and one I posted to his 'space' (to which I got no response -- I don't know the subject header for it just now) in which I tried to calm him down and soothe ruffled feathers, did no good, when he originally wanted to know why 'his' article had been changed.

This last business, as it concerns the BBC, seemed best left to the Towers, to me. Mr Jaynes did not seem willing to listen to you, Mikey, but rather only seemed to want to argue. I felt he distorted the truth rather badly. That is something for which I have no tolerance. smiley - steam My limitations in action, for which I take full responsibility, include total intolerance for anyone who distorts the truth to his/her advantage.

I went a little far in actually stating a percentage demand. smiley - erm That is the only place, so far as I am concerned, where I did go too far.

In one of my earlier efforts to mollify Mr Jaynes, I may have exacerbated his lack of understanding by saying '....so far as I am concerned, the article is still yours'. That was not meant to refer to copyright, but rather to the concept for the article. smiley - blue I did not say so clearly in that particular posting, though I believe I did elsewhere.

And finally, yes, I do fall back on very starchy business English when I feel there are legalities in question. It is an old, and not necessarily warm-and-fuzzy habit. I just do it. So long as a relationship is legalistic and adversarial on either, if not both sides, I do not use first names. My flaw? Yes, but it is sheer habit. I am too unwell these days to fret something relatively trivial like whether I escalated the situation by referring to 'Mr Jaynes' in the third person or not. You both spoke directly to him, and you got the results you did. smiley - cross I did not want a direct reply from him to me, so I wrote as I did.

I just hope this can be cleared up without yet another researcher feeling the need to leave. The business with Shadow was very unfortunate, as was the matter of Playboy Reporter. If Mr Jaynes was using the Peer Review under false pretenses, then that decision should be up to the Towers.

'Nuff said.

Sara Barnes, for LeKZ
who wish none of this had happened... in a really big way.smiley - bigeyes

Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 42

Mark Moxon


I don't really think I can add too much to this Conversation except to give official backing to some of the comments. Basically here's how the BBC sees it.

The original entry (which has been deleted by the original author) can be sold to other publications by the author. The licence to publish that h2g2 owns is non-exclusive, and as it is (presumably) the author's own work he can do what he likes with it.

Edited Entries contain contributions from many people, including the original author, anyone whose Peer Review contributions have been incorporated, the Sub-editor, the in-house editors who do the final edits, and (in some cases, but not for this one) the artist who adds a picture. All of the voluntary contributors grant the BBC a non-exclusive licence to publish what they contribute, so when it comes to the final Edited Entry, the only 'person' holding all the various permissions and licences is the BBC itself; nobody else can give permission for this to be published, because even if all the original authors got together to ask for permission to publish, they wouldn't own the licence to publish the work done by BBC staff (and *all* Edited Entries get some kind of polish from the staff).

In the past we have given permission to publish Edited Entries only twice; once was in a deal with the travel site lastminute.com who published ten of our entries, but since then the deal has been nullified and the entries are no longer on their website. The other one was with a book publisher who wanted to quote sections of one of our entries, crediting h2g2, and I asked the original author if that was OK, and they were delighted with the idea. No money changed hands in either of these cases (the lastminute deal was traffic based).

We're willing to consider the publication of Edited Entries outside the BBC, but we would always follow the following rules:

* Is this publication beneficial to the BBC and/or the h2g2 project? If not, the answer is likely to be 'no'.

* Permission must be granted by all those who have contributed in a reasonably significant way to the entry (those in the 'Written and Researched by' and 'Editor' lists).

* It's unlikely that we'd allow people to make money out of it - that's not the point of h2g2.

* Permission must be granted by BBC Editorial Policy and the BBC lawyers, and the publisher must include relevant credits and copyright notices.

In this case the first three requirements are *not* met, and the fourth is not relevant unless the first three conditions are satisfied.

As a final word, I should add that this is all a consequence of the terms and conditions of the site, but in all cases we are perfectly reasonable people and are happy to discuss things. If all the voluntary contributors wanted to publish their Edited Entry somewhere and it wasn't for huge profit or for a dodgy cause, we'd make all the efforts we could to enable them to do so (if it was in the interests of the site). However in this case communal permission has quite obviously *not* been given, so it's a very different situation.

Sorry Nathan; you can publish your original, but you cannot publish the Edited Entry. I'd politely suggest that you digest the terms and conditions, and consider whether h2g2 is a suitable platform for you to use for your writing skills when you're also looking at publication outside h2g2. Our normal advice to writers is not to put anything on h2g2 that you might want to publish elsewhere; this advice still stands.

Hope this clarifies things from this end. Fire away if anything else needs to be answered.

Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 43

Mikey the Humming Mouse - A3938628 Learn More About the Edited Guide!

Thanks, Mark!

-- Mikey

Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 44

Nathan ---Owner and Operator of the Swank and often Smoking Jacket

Funny how things happen. I hope that this response will put this nastiness to rest. I fear that it won't but at least I will have made an attempt and that is enough. First the matter of curry being an invention of restauranteurs who have taken the proverbial ball and ran with it. I was talking about curry the spice as it is sold in stores and in western restaurants where it is about the same as taco seasoning here in America. Yet Mexicans do eat tacos, yes they season their tacos, and yes they do use some of the same seasonings that you find in little taco seasoning packets. The difference is they do not use the seasoning packets, each dish is spiced a little differently (some of the spices have been in use for centuries). Curry was explained to me to be in about the same situation. Curry can be thousands of different things to a thousand different people. I might not have been as clear as I should have on this point, maybe I was mistaken but I suppose the damage is done.

As for publishing the article, I had not thought about being paid for writing it until LeKS mentioned it. For me it was just a passing idea. I liked the way it had turned out. I do not regularly post writings on the net and steal people's ideas after they provide feedback. This was not my intention or my goal. The idea of publishing the entry ruffled a few feathers, well actually it was more like sprinkling water on chickens they all run in different directions and make a lot of noise (a lot of fun on a Saturday afternoon but just don't make a habit of it). I hope no feathers are permanently out of place, if so may I offer my apologies and if needed a little preening.

As for the future of the entry (okay, I didn't say mine this time did I?) I hope it is enjoyed by all. It will not publish anywhere but where it is. I hope someone has the chance to correct it before it becomes an edited entry.

This whole affair has become very very silly. What started off as a simple question, has now turned into the fiasco everyone can read here. I did put a few hours of research into the entry, I felt proud of it. Many intelligent editions have been made by people that knew more about curry than myself. They contributed a great deal to the project. I would never imagine stealing someone's ideas and passing them off as my own. I would have liked to publish the article and acknowledge all those who contributed including the forum of the guide itself. That idea was greeted by the editorial staff like a .......... I won't go on here but as I said, it all turned out to be very very silly (call the towers indeed!).

Thank you all again for your kind words and for volunteering as editors in the Guide project. I'm sorry if you had to work harder on my behalf.

Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 45

Arpeggio - Keeper, Muse, Against Sequiturs, à propos of nothing in particular

'I had not thought about being paid for writing it until LeKS mentioned it'.

Come again?

I am not going to endeavour to argue. No purpose would be served. Anyone can read the backlog. They can work out what was thought of and said by whom, to whom.

Leïlah el Khalil Zendavesta, MAR

Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 46

Martin Harper

> "I had not thought about being paid for writing it until LeKZ mentioned it"

For the record, I was the first person to mention money (post 28), then Mikey (post 30), then Nathan (post 31), then LeKZ (post 36), then PaulH (post 39), and finally the ineffable Mr. Moxon (post 42). Seems like Nathan must have confused me or Mikey with LeKZ, or something.


Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 47

Martin Harper

(2smiley - bigeyes should be ( 28 ).

Dang smilies... smiley - winkeye

Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 48

Mark Moxon

As nobody else has said it, I'll say thanks to Nathan for his apology: that was a nice posting, despite the slight innaccuracy therein. smiley - winkeye

Although the Conversation might have been a little 'active', it's good for us all to discuss things like this from time to time. Glad you like the way the entry turned out, and I hope you get a kick from contributing in the future.

Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 49

Martin Harper

Thank you, Nathan: Your core values really showed through in that post, and it certainly helped everyone put this thread behind them. The deepness of your regret was clear for everyone to see, and I'd like to join Mark in wishing you a real kick out of h2g2.

Mistakes and misunderstandings will often happen in text forums sadly. For myself, I am sorry for any wild assumptions I made which turned out to be incorrect - and I hope you found my posts informative rather than threatening - I was certainly trying to be helpful, anyway.

And finally, I'd like to thank all the contributors to this entry, who have helped to make it a wonderful entry. I hope you will all not let the ugliness in this incident put you off, and continue to make such valuable contributions to h2g2. Get yourself a drink! smiley - bubbly

Xanthia - who is distinctly neither a smiley - chick, nor particularly smiley - silly...

Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 50

Martin Harper

My, but I wrote that badly - smiley - yuk at too much repetition... smiley - sadface

Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 51

The H2G2 Editors

We would also like to update Mark's original response in Posting 42 to the following, more accurate version:

"Edited Entries contain contributions from many people, including those from the original author, anyone whose Peer Review contributions have been incorporated, the Sub-editor, the in-house editors who make the final edits, and in some cases, the artist who adds a picture. Contributors continue to own the underlying rights in their individual contributions, but it is the BBC who owns the overall copyright in the Edited Edition. To republish the Edited Edition, someone would therefore need permission from the BBC, but because the non-exclusive licence granted by contributors to the BBC pursuant to the Terms and Conditions includes the right to sub-licence its rights, there would be no need to ask the permission of other individual contributors as well."

The gist is the same, but this time it's been written by a lawyer, not an Editor. smiley - biggrin

FYI, we have also added two new questions to the Legal FAQ at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/DontPanic-Legal that cover this area in more detail.

Factual Errors - Editorial Staff, Please Note

Post 52

Martin Harper

Thanks Mark - just the business! smiley - biggrin

Key: Complain about this post