h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

""In order to make h2g2 fit for a transfer of ownership, legal details, such as copyright, must be worked out before anyone can take ownership. ""

on this point, has the BBC or any lawyers contacted anyone who has written an entry, with regard to copyright issues????

can they just sell some wrighters work, with out their permission and wouldn't they have to pay him/her for it

where are the royalties???

It's one of the great unanswered questions Taff. I don't see any reason why researchers, or the consortium can't have a go at finding out ourselves. Any copyright lawyers in the house? I could find out here, but I don't think NZ law would be useful enough in this situation. Although maybe I could find out about copyright for non-British researchers...

Here are the copyright rules you agreed to on signing up to h2g2 - I believe they were similar in the TDV days.
-------------------
It's important to note that you still own the copyright to everything you contribute to H2G2. This means you are perfectly free to take what you have written and re-publish it somewhere else.

All you do in contributing to H2G2 is to grant us the right to publish. In other words, anything you create on H2G2 is done under the condition that you grant us a non-exclusive licence to distribute and edit the material in any way that we want, and in any media. (See the Terms and Conditions for the full terms of our rights.) As we may wish to distribute content on H2G2 in various formats over time, we need to be sure that we have the right to publish everything that's on the site.

From that I take that the BBC can sell any part of h2g2, even make h2g2 into a book and sell that, all without permission from individual researchers (since researchers have already granted permission by contributing in the first place).

Interestingly, any individual researcher could still sell a book of their own entries/comments, but could not include another researcher's material unless that researcher granted permission. So if I wanted to sell a book of the Edited Guide I would either have to seek permission from the BBC or from every contributing researcher.

surely then if its sold the new owners have to get permission from every writer to re publish on the new site??

they might not agree with the new owners principles ???

they might want to take their ball back and go home??

No, the BBC have the right to redistribute the material in any way including selling/giving it to another site.

If this was not the case, h2g2 could never have been sold to the BBC in the first place.

That's good.

So we can take the entries with us. The Guide may be copyrighted to the bbc, but the individual entries can be taken offsite by individual authors.

The second bit, about the bbc's rights, those all look like publishing rights. That's different from selling rights isn't it? Does the small print say they can sell on the publishing rights? (I would guess yes).

What are the precedents here? Has the bbc sold any other websites? What's happened in other internet sales?

Hi everyone - I can understand why you're speculating about this. And I hope you will understand that I can't say much about it at the moment.

But to try to answer the question "How much say" you will have. There is a process being mapped out as to how the BBC is going to do this. The decision as to what happens will be made by the BBC. But one of the important considerations in what is decided will be how any potential new owner relates to and works with the H2G2 community. Any new owner would have to understand this as without the community the site would die.

What I'm trying to say is: trust me and my colleagues. We are very aware of the importance of the community and this will be a key factor in whatever is decided.

Thanks

Thanks, Nick.

I think we can safely assume from that this isn't a 'done deal' and that this transition will take some time to put into action.

Please keep us informed with how you're getting on - especially if you get any kind of timetable in place.

Icy

Nick - here's a question you can't answer, but my job is asking questions and it's a hobby of mine as well!

How constrained are you here? Is the the financial interest of the ... um .... trustees (?) licence fee payer (?) government (?) the the main thing? Or is the BBC able to take other aspects of its remit (quality / serving minority groups and specialist audiences / educational value etc) into account?

Ach, I don't know why I'm posting this because I know you can't answer. Damn.

Or maybe you have answered it already:

"The decision as to what happens will be made by the BBC. But one of the important considerations in what is decided will be how any potential new owner relates to and works with the H2G2 community."

Hmmmm.

*thinks*

Thanks

Ben

Well what happened when the BBC brought h2g2 off TDV? A similar process must have taken place?

I get the impression that it all happened so fast most of the BBC weren't aware until the deal was done. And in ten years it wouldn't surprise me if online law has complicated somewhat...

I like you asking these questions Mrs Zen because they are questions that occur to me as well, that for some reason I'm too nervous to ask. It's to do with being viewed as a 'trouble maker', or is that my paranoia? You speak for others as well as yourself, and politely. *Presses 'like' button*

""It's to do with being viewed as a 'trouble maker',""

I'll wear that badge if you knock it up s

Thanks Nick.

>>
What I'm trying to say is: trust me and my colleagues. We are very aware of the importance of the community and this will be a key factor in whatever is decided.
<<

Actually I do trust you when it comes to getting the best deal you can for the community. What I'm not yet reassured about is do you and your colleagues know the community sufficiently well to manage that process without us? The redesign has shown that even the Eds missed things that many in the community considered important (or even vital). I think it's the difference between looking from the outside (in your case), or from the outside with occasional forays in (in the Eds' case), and those of us who have been on here daily for years. I just think we know stuff, important stuff, about this place that you and other bbc staff don't (and vice versa I'm sure). My fear is that these things will be lost in the process and sale negotiation. Is there any way you can utilise us as a resource in that?

I totally agree with kea, h2g2 is a site that is best viewed from the inside, an outsider, even an editor who dips in is difficult. There needs to be users involved in the tendering process even if just in an advisory capacity.

At the moment there are a group of us (h2g2c2) who are putting together a bid for a community-run h2g2. We're doing this because we believe that we may be the best option for the site, we don't know what the other options are, it actually takes quite a lot of time to put together a business plan, structure, etc, and we can't wait until we know who the other bidders are before putting something together. We see ourselves as being more of back-up plan if someone else who can do it better doesn't come along..

So we are in essence one of the bidders, and of course it would be inappropriate for us to involved in advising as well as bidding. However it would be great if some other researchers, some different researchers could give a community-eye view of the different options.

Do forgive me because I know this is not going to be popular, but would any of you please let me know exactly WHY any future buyer would have to consult with anyone who uses this site?

Kea : Post 47

"So we can take the entries with us. The Guide may be copyrighted to the bbc, but the individual entries can be taken offsite by individual authors."

Err, no. The Guide isn't copyright to the BBC. The Guide copyright belongs to the authors of every individual article. What the BBC has, is, as stated, a licence to use, eat, waft vaguely, or indeed sell their licence to publish the articles. When sold, this will undoubtedly give the new owner identical rights in a licence to also use, eat, waft vaguely etc.

"The second bit, about the bbc's rights, those all look like publishing rights. That's different from selling rights isn't it? Does the small print say they can sell on the publishing rights?"

Yes, the right to publish is different to the right to sell. What has been granted to the BBC is the right to publish, and the right to sell or pass on that right to someone else. The right to sell the work remains with the author.

It depends on whether or not the commuinty was something that they thought was important to the long term viability of the site.

If they're doing it to get their paws on DNA then yeah, they couldn't care less about us.

If the new owner wants us to carry on writing, they have to make sure that they don't piss us off so badly that we leave.

Doc : Post 57

"Do forgive me because I know this is not going to be popular, but would any of you please let me know exactly WHY any future buyer would have to consult with anyone who uses this site?"

They don't. However, it would be good practice to, as the source of the material in the EG, comes from us (Hah! Yes, I know, not me (yet!)) the community. If you irritate the community to the extent we all leave, you'll have destroyed the source of any new material you'll have (presumably) paid money for. Which is bad business practice.