Removing posts from forums?

[rG-tom]

In another forum I frequent, users started to notice the 'overall post count' on thr front page slowly start to trickle downwards, even though we were adding to it at the time - eventually it came to light that one guy was leaving, and in his paranoia was deleting all of his posts (possible with the permissions on that forum).

I don't remember him having terribly controversial views, I still wonder what he thought he had to hide. He certainly wasn't victimised, just wanted to do it.

But the mod team and some users got really miffed at him as he had contributed some useful stuff, and a lot of threads would be left all confused without his posts. Moot point now though, seeing as the forums just got hacked and it's in the process of starting over...

hmm was that digi darkroom by any chance sara? If not, i remember a very similar thing happening there, was a terrible shame he had written many fantastic tutorials

Tom.

 

[Oblivious]

Wish people would learn that the Internet is just another method of communication.

Threats made via it, are just as serious as a threat made over the phone or via email.

Its just a majority of people dont seem to see it this way.

 

[Mickey_D]

Slime101, are you hosting the photos or are they kept in the forum database?

If you are hosting them, just rename them on the host.

And if you REALLY wanted to mess with them, substitute let's not mention that shall we, not a nice thought and not suitable on this forum for your photos with the original names..... :vomitsmiliey:

 

[Slime101]

Slime101, are you hosting the photos or are they kept in the forum database?

If you are hosting them, just rename them on the host.

And if you REALLY wanted to mess with them, substitute REMOVED for your photos with the original names..... :vomitsmiliey:

They dont allow external linking and so ar ein database, however that does not grant them any legal rights to MY photos!!

They also seem to have changed the FAQ - its full of we wont delete this and we wont do that on request so go suck eggs type notices!

 

[cyKey]

Unless stated in their T&C that by uploading images to their site you are giving them copyright they don't have a leg to stand on. The problem with the Internet is that so many people love to hide behind their monitors and shout people down.

 

[Dinomania]

hmm was that digi darkroom by any chance sara? If not, i remember a very similar thing happening there, was a terrible shame he had written many fantastic tutorials
Tom.

Nope, another. It's odd isn't it?

 

[Beansprout]

Remove the photos on your hosting, or rename them - that'll stop them linking to them. Edit your profile and remove links to your site. See if you can edit your posts and if so, edit the content out of them. If you can delete your own posts, even better.
Edit: Ah, you can't edit. D'oh. How about this:

If you can use mod_rewrite and .htaccess with your hosting you can block all referrals from their site and send them to Disney instead:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^[their domain, no brackets]$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.disney.com [L]

 

[pyro]

You can't escape the anti-terror squad

Surely not? Search by user and block delete?

Quotes?

 

[Aliboy]

I think you'll find you are. The thread starter is after some serious advice and you come in trying to play the "humour" card. It wasn't really neccesary and would have annoyed me too.
Some people don't seem to be able to tell the appropriate time and place.

Leave the guy alone. We all like to add our little bits of humour to 'serious' threads at times and I'm sure he meant no harm by posting that little picture. Next time there is a 'My g/f left me' thread or something similar along those lines then just watch how much 'humour' is actually posted there.

 

[Scania]

Leave the guy alone. We all like to add our little bits of humour to 'serious' threads at times and I'm sure he meant no harm by posting that little picture. Next time there is a 'My g/f left me' thread or something similar along those lines then just watch how much 'humour' is actually posted there.

Spoken for truth.

>> Walks off laughing at the low post count for Alchemy <<

Back on topic, I recall doing similar things on a Flight Sim forum years back, a user got banned, so I spend about 20 minutes deleting his posts & quotes.

A completely different forum to the one used here @ OC/UK though.

 

[tenchi-fan]

Is it possible posts are automatically deleted after a certain number of weeks, or are they kept forever (and ever)?

If you're sick of the abuse, just stop posting!! Modify your profile to delete any personal info.

I doubt you have any right to have your posts deleted, and the bulletin board most likely has every right to display them as long as they like. I would seriously doubt they own the copyright.

 

[Slime101]

Is it possible posts are automatically deleted after a certain number of weeks, or are they kept forever (and ever)?

If you're sick of the abuse, just stop posting!! Modify your profile to delete any personal info.

I doubt you have any right to have your posts deleted, and the bulletin board most likely has every right to display them as long as they like. I would seriously doubt they own the copyright.

If they dont own the copyright then i must have a right to have them deleted?

I dont have any personal info on there - do you really believe that stops people?

 

[Oblivious]

If they dont own the copyright then i must have a right to have them deleted?

Contact there hosting provider, or upstream provider if they have there own server. Just inform them that "The forums" have copyrighted material that they refuse to remove.

 

[Sequoia]

Quotes?

No, what I suggested in the post you quoted wouldn't deal with that, but at that time, Slime hadn't said he wanted that. He said he wanted posts removed and the Username deleted. My suggestion would achieve that.

 

[danrok]

If they dont own the copyright then i must have a right to have them deleted?

Which country is their site based in?

In the UK copyright is assumed by default, your photos belong to you unless you have transferred ownership to them in writing.

But, if they are unwilling to remove the photos, I think you would have to force them to delete the photos using a solictor, at your own expense.

 

[Sequoia]

Nope. Edit is disabled after about 2 mins of post being posted.

Surely ..... edit without "Edited by ..." is disabled after a minutre of two. Edit isn't. You can't deete the posts, but unless the ability to edit is turned off for you, you can edit the content, and that means you can remove it. It wouldn't mean all trace isremoved, and it won't deal with quotes, but you could remove much of any material you wanted removed.

They also claim the copyright on my photos.....which i KNOW is incorrrect as under UK and EU law i legally own the copyright regardless as the person who took the photos.

That is generally true, but it isn't an absolute. The photographer usually owns copyright, but there are exceptions .... such as when photos are taken in the course of your employment, where the employer would own copyright. But, generally, you're right.

I somehow thing that their copyright "claims" are a bit er....hopeful and wild.

Yes, probably ....but the problem is that enforcing legal rights can require courts and can get expensive.

Can you afford to pursue the copyright angle? If you can, is it worth that much to you do to so? If you went that route, would it be worth it to whoever claims to "own" your copyright to defend it? Bear in mind that "worth it" doesn't necessarily involve material worth. I've taken court action over copyright before when someone used work I own and was obnoxious about it when asked to remove it. They told me to "sue then!" .... so I did. Then, having commenced the legal action, I refused to halt it until until I not only got the work removed, but also a written undertaking not to infringe my copyright in future, AND a prominently published grovelling apology. It turned out the idiot using my work didn't have the funds (or maybe the balls) to actually fight the case. Once he worked out that I not only did have the funds, but was so pee'd off that I didn't care what it cost, I had him by the gonads.

Unfortunately, far too much law in this (and many) countries is only really enforceable by those with deep pockets.


The problem, therefore, is that any "rights" you may have to enforce removal if it isn't done willingly generally come down to whether you're prepared to pay for lawyers to push it, and whether the other side is prepared to pay for lawyers to contest it. If both sides are, it's going to cost someone a lot of money, and only the lawyers will win in the end (financially).

Oh, and by the way, copyright law has many facets. Don't forget that one of the rights is the creator's right to be identified as the creator, and that right is non-assignable. It is possible waive the right, but not to assign it, and waivers are revocable.

 

[Slime101]

Surely ..... edit without "Edited by ..." is disabled after a minutre of two. Edit isn't. You can't deete the posts, but unless the ability to edit is turned off for you, you can edit the content, and that means you can remove it. It wouldn't mean all trace isremoved, and it won't deal with quotes, but you could remove much of any material you wanted removed.

Erm no, edit is disabled after a few mins of the post - no going back at all. Edit is there for about 2 mins then it dissapears and no further editing is possible.

That is generally true, but it isn't an absolute. The photographer usually owns copyright, but there are exceptions .... such as when photos are taken in the course of your employment, where the employer would own copyright. But, generally, you're right.

I am the photographer (in fact i am A photographer (part time)) and the copyright is definatly mine, even with images i've sold the copyright is still mine

Oh, and by the way, copyright law has many facets. Don't forget that one of the rights is the creator's right to be identified as the creator, and that right is non-assignable. It is possible waive the right, but not to assign it, and waivers are revocable.

What does this mean in english?

 

[tenchi-fan]

I am the photographer (in fact i am A photographer (part time)) and the copyright is definatly mine, even with images i've sold the copyright is still mine

Maybe so, but by posting although you are not transferring the copyright, you may be giving them permission to display the photos on their website.

I'm not a lawyer of course! But it makes sense.

 

[Slime101]

Maybe so, but by posting although you are not transferring the copyright, you may be giving them permission to display the photos on their website.

I'm not a lawyer of course! But it makes sense.

A right as the owner and copyright holder which i can revoke at any time.

 

[Sequoia]

I am the photographer (in fact i am A photographer (part time)) and the copyright is definatly mine, even with images i've sold the copyright is still mine

As I said, generally, that's true (and it likely is in your circumstances). But the point I was making was that your statement that as photographer copyright is yours "regardless" was wrong. That isn't true.

Let me give you an example. I run a local newspaper, and you work for me as a staff photographer. The copyright to any pictures you take as part of that employment belong to me, the employer, not you, the photographer (unless, of course, we have a contract that says something else). But that wouldn't mean I have copyright over photos you take that aren't part of your employment (like holiday shots, etc).

So generally, the photographer owns copyright, but it isn't the case that it is true "regardless".

What does this mean in english?

Copyright law embeds various rights. Mostly, it is the right to control work, etc, prevent unauthorised copying, etc, but there are "moral" rights as well, such as the right to be identified as the creator.

A fundamental tenet of copyright law is that the rights holder has the ability to assign (i.e. sell, lend, rent or give) those rights to another person. But that moral right (identification) is not assignable.

You can choose not to exercise it (i.e. waive that right), but you can't assign it to someone else. And if you do waive that right, it can be done in such a way as to be revocable.