It is horrible to be on the receiving end, but someone has to stand up and say "No more," and to hell with the consequences.
Who owns the copyright on MetaFilter content?
On the footer of every MetaFilter page is: © 1999-2015 MetaFilter Network Inc. All posts are © their original authors. What this means is that people own their own content. So if you wanted to publish a book of your own MetaFilter comments, you could. However if you wanted to publish a book of other people's MetaFilter comments you'd need to speak with those individual users; MetaFilter is not the owner of the copyright of that content. People have, however, granted MetaFilter the right to display their comments. MetaFilter will generally go after websites that are making wholsale reproductions of MetaFilter content, but limited content quoting is considered fair use and will be treated as such.
I disabled my account a while back, don't plan on reactivating it, and hadn't been checking MeFi since, but I saw this on The Mary Sue and immediately popped back over to see what the deal was.
I'd (yes, naively) assumed that the MeFites whose comments were lifted wholesale and replicated on the PDF had at least been given a heads-up, and figured that my account being disabled had prevented me from being contacted along with everyone else. Now I see that not only was no one given a heads-up via MeTa, MeFi, email, or MeMail, but that it wasn't even on the compilers' radar screen until someone brought it up in this thread, which is frankly shocking to me, especially considering that this had apparently been in the works since last summer.
Suffice it to say that I have a whole lot of not-great feelings about the opacity with which this document was compiled, but jaguar pretty much covered them all with her 7:07 PM comment above. To my mind, the way it was put together -- no heads-up given, let alone permission sought or granted -- flies in the face of the most meaningful parts of the discussion. Even if MeMailing individual users was out of the question, it would have been easy, fast, and free to draw up a brief MeTa about the project before it was finalized and published.
Yes, I'm aware that I have absolutely no control over how, where, or why my words are used once they're posted here. And yes, I'm aware that what I've already written on MeFi was, is, and will continue to be publicly visible in perpetuity. But no, I still don't really want my comments being used to chase and capture pageviews or ad impressions anywhere outside of this site. I'd very much appreciate it if what I wrote could be removed from the annotated document.
divined by radio
We have Crone Island to thank for this - it was organized, proofread, etc.. through there and everyone involved deserves major kudos and pitchers of margaritas!
posted by Deoridhe at 8:16 PM on January 6 [27 favorites +] [!]
For the heck of it, I printed the original thread to pdf.
It came to 983 pages.
The doc is 72 pages. All the low-content stuff is removed, including the back and forth conversations. It's also indexed.
My first thought on seeing this document was, "Is this going to be what prompts my ex to come shoot me?"
On a larger note, this is not the first time I've felt burned on this site as a survivor of domestic violence, when users have assumed that because I agreed to one thing (like publishing my own comment in a certain context) that I somehow gave consent to something else (like being published in a widely shared document). For people with violent exes or stalkers, such blithe disregard for consent can cause emotional and physical harm. (My first thought on seeing this document was, "Is this going to be what prompts my ex to come shoot me?") While I do what I can to mitigate harm in terms of how much I share, I really wish everyone here would be much more aware of how much damage you can cause by assuming everyone wants as much public exposure as you might.
why anyone felt they had the right to take that thread, distill and distribute it without permission.
Also - looking at the PDF document, the credits section says that all the comments whose authors oklima297 wasn't able to reach have now been removed. So I think that means the document now just has comments where people have agreed to have them included.
Classification by compilation is an aggregation of pre-existing unclassified items of information. The compiled information may be classified if it reveals an additional association or relationship that meets the standards for classification and is not otherwise revealed in the individual items of information. Bringing together information that is already classified from more than one source document is not a compilation; it is derivative classification. However, information from multiple sources that is already classified at one level may result in a higher level of classification when it is compiled.
This thread is closed to new comments.