Whats the NAWCC thinking ?

A forum that includes information from the NAWCC Library and archives
Message
Author
User avatar
diveboy
Posts: 2001
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:22 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Whats the NAWCC thinking ?

#1 Post by diveboy » Mon Jan 26, 2015 3:10 pm

for those of you on the NAWCC forum, you would have seen the new rules.

http://mb.nawcc.org/showwiki.php?title= ... oard_Rules

I would just like to highlight the following clauses to ensure you realised what your about to agree to

well, I can't quote them as they are copyrighted and I don't have permission but in summary and my own interpretation

I think it's 6.5 (their clause numbers don't follow either) that says you grant the NAWCC to do with as it pleases on anything you post for educational use but we know that educational use costs money.

But they then advise in 6.7 that you can add a statement removing this permission but you cannot put it in your signature block, this must be posted on the first line of your message manually every post and in every image you post.

I was thinking about joining the NAWCC but this just sealed the deal for me, nor will I ever be posting on their forum, my research can stay here.

also there is no process for copyright issues (6.9), just the site admins using their judgement, what happens when they get it wrong ?

I guess forums like this will start to see the younger guys like me flocking to it and avoiding the NAWCC forums with these terms.

Yeh I know, I'm playing the black hat in this and I expect wide ranges of replies and sorry if this gets out of hand but I just wanted to raise it.

Yes I know the NAWCC does a great service but really, they get their yearly dues from memberships, beg for donations on their forum pages, whats going on with the funding ? they now need to harvest research from their members and guests ?

DISCLAIMER:

This view is from someone new to watch collecting, an outsider of the NAWCC and my view, in no way is it a reflection of fellow members of this forum and their views and opinions are theirs to do with as they wish.

Copryright 2015 - reproduction of any of this message on any other website, message forum or email other than vintagewatchforums.com requires written permission from my self.
Disruptive Elgin Collector.... 39.56043956043956
http://www.elgin.watch - Elgin Model Database
instagram @elgindownunder

User avatar
watchdoc
Posts: 831
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:04 am

Re: Whats the NAWCC thinking ?

#2 Post by watchdoc » Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:05 pm

That's a great question!

Short answer is, I'm not sure that they even know what they are doing. In other words, they may have just shot themselves in the foot. There appears to be some dissension within the BOD, at least that's what I perceived from sitting in on the last on-line BOD meeting.

I recently got into it with one "moderator" who felt it was his "duty" to remove my post on "deceptive advertising" that had absolutely no direct links or references to a particular eBay seller. This seller loved throwing in words like Rolex and Omega and Patek in his listings for watches that were Bulova, Hamilton, etc.
There was absolutely no convincing this "moderator" that I didn't "violate" the forum rules and at the time he removed my thread it was a lighthearted and lively discussion. He also claimed he had discussed the removal with several moderators, however after contacting several other moderators within the various forums they stated they had no idea what I was talking about!

What's really funny is he wasn't even the moderator of that particular forum. :roll:
"A man is no better than what he leaves behind"
Cecil B. DeMille

Try to remember, Just because you read it on the internet, doesn't make it true!

C. Hurt
Posts: 433
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:54 pm

Re: Whats the NAWCC thinking ?

#3 Post by C. Hurt » Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:02 pm

First, I'm a reasonably long time collector, a member of the NAWCC, and a moderator of their message board. Their rules have been recently clarified and simplified, and are actually considerably easier to understand and less onerous than the previous version. I am not though an employee, and I am speaking as an individual.

Diveboy, I guess I don't really understand what is so bothersome to you, but the NAWCC message board rules are similar to the terms of service for many other such boards. It may help to understand that there is some history of posters deciding that their posts are their personal intellectual property, and thus deciding to delete the content or demanding payment for its use. Removal of those posts ruins the continuity and often the educational value of the thread, and the purpose of the board is that education. In fact, the tax-free status of the NAWCC is dependent upon them serving an educational mission, and the message board is seen as an educational outreach service, being freely available to non-members at no cost.

In order to be able to control the content on their board, it is deemed necessary to ask for the "non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license for use of and the right to publish and distribute your postings for educational purposes. Such use includes threads or parts thereof that contain your own postings." That is a complicated way of saying they need your permission to post (ie publish) and keep your content on the board forever. Nowhere in that statement is there any evidence of intent to make money off of the research and knowledge that so many experts are freely willing to share.

You may also wish to note the preceding section (6.4) which plainly states "NAWCC warrant that you will retain full copyright ownership, rights, and privileges for each post that you make on this MB and the content therein, and you may reuse those posts in any way desired." And the following section (6.6) "NAWCC further agrees that it will not sell, transfer or license the right to copy and use threads from this MB to outside third parties."

So what exactly is the problem?

Perhaps it is a generational issue, and old guys like me (and several like-minded members of the NAWCC) believe that our knowledge, research results, opinions, and collections should be shared for the edification of others, in the hope of inspiring younger collectors to attain greater knowledge than we have acquired. I freely admit that I have learned most of what I know from others who were generous enough to mentor and share with me. It is only a recent development that I have run into some who believe that every "discovery" is a private holding to be monetized, and sold to those who wish to learn. That they are younger didn't occur to me, but perhaps you are right.

Watchdoc,

I don't know which moderator you had issues with, but I will admit there are some strong personalities there. My experience is that a couple of them will sometimes err on the side of protecting the NAWCC from possible (albeit unlikely) repercussions. Please feel free to PM me through this board or that one if you have questions that a moderator might be able to help with.

I would advise anyone considering membership in the NAWCC to consider the whole package. The best parts are the personal relationships that one can develop with the true giants who have led the way in our hobby. If you find the conditions of the message board too burdensome, then don't post your information there, even though there is no intent to relieve you of its ownership, but don't deprive yourself of the publications, the workshops, the library and research services, the marts and most importantly, the members.

Again, I'm not speaking for the organization, but hope that this provides a different perspective.

Regards,

Cary

User avatar
diveboy
Posts: 2001
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 4:22 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Whats the NAWCC thinking ?

#4 Post by diveboy » Tue Jan 27, 2015 2:08 am

C. Hurt wrote: In order to be able to control the content on their board, it is deemed necessary to ask for the "non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license for use of and the right to publish and distribute your postings for educational purposes. Such use includes threads or parts thereof that contain your own postings." That is a complicated way of saying they need your permission to post (ie publish) and keep your content on the board forever. Nowhere in that statement is there any evidence of intent to make money off of the research and knowledge that so many experts are freely willing to share.

You may also wish to note the preceding section (6.4) which plainly states "NAWCC warrant that you will retain full copyright ownership, rights, and privileges for each post that you make on this MB and the content therein, and you may reuse those posts in any way desired." And the following section (6.6) "NAWCC further agrees that it will not sell, transfer or license the right to copy and use threads from this MB to outside third parties."

So what exactly is the problem?
Cary,

Thanks for responding and I appreciate your views on this and do understand that you are answering on your own here.

The main concern I have is that while the NAWCC warrants that you retain full copyright ownership, it also grants anyone in the NAWCC to reuse it as they see fit (boiling down that everything that the NAWCC is for education only and not for profit).

so one example is that 5 users each post different images of one type of movement. Someone decides that they are doing an article and require the images for the article, which is then published in the bulletin. All this is fine and I agree in theory that this is great. But what if I want to quote or use the article for my own educational research, what rights do I have for referencing the article on my own website which was born from my own content ? The article is copyrighted by the NAWCC as it should be.

Do posters from the forum automatically get credit for their data in any article published that references their data ?
What happens when the poster reuses their data/images for their own profit ? will the NAWCC claim copyright on data / images that have been referenced from the forum in articles ? Afterall, when the articles is published, it's copyrighted.

How is this data tracked and audited ? who's responsible for ensuring correct use of the images / data ?
Is this audit data publicly available ? after all, it will contain details from non NAWCC members
If I post in the forums, do I get notified that my images / data has been referenced in an article ?
What recourse do I have if I feel the article has taken my images / data out of context ? Do I get to comment / approve / reject the article before its published ? I know that clause 5 states due care will be excerised, but if I don't agree, what happens ? how is it handled, whats the process ?
It also shouldn't matter where the "Copyright by firstname lastname, reuse prohibited" is with in the post, according to most copyright councils across the world, as long as it is contained in the content at a point, it applies. The only reason I can see that this would be spelt out in the clauses is to stop people from adding it automatically in their signature and this is a real sad point, that its had to come to this, there is no mention of the "Copyright by firstname lastname, reuse prohibited" having to be at the top of the image, so why does it have to apply to the forum post at the first line.

I realise I'm getting into the nitty gritty and you may or may not be the right person to answer, if you feel that you would like to not answer, I respect that and ask that you ask the powers to be over at the NAWCC these questions on my behalf, you have my thanks in advance.

I think I was a little hasty in my first post, I do agree the NAWCC is great and the people in the Club do a great job. I have no issues with that, I do have issues with the membership of $72 a year, a banner on the forum begging for donations, ad's now being displayed on the forum, it shouldn't be this way but the new terms of service are just beyond my agreeing to them, in no way was I advising anyone not to join, just the reason that I wouldn't be joining. I know quite a few members of the NAWCC and the interactions of I've had with Adam on here have been great. You taking your time to respond to this post I also appreciate.

Thanks again for your time and understanding.

Michael.
Disruptive Elgin Collector.... 39.56043956043956
http://www.elgin.watch - Elgin Model Database
instagram @elgindownunder

User avatar
GLADIATOR
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Spain - Costa Blanca

Re: Whats the NAWCC thinking ?

#5 Post by GLADIATOR » Tue Jan 27, 2015 1:44 pm

Hi Cary
As always, an excellent post - you are a 'King among Men' and a 'mentor to me. - Thank You
You may also wish to note the preceding section (6.4) which plainly states "NAWCC warrant that you will retain full copyright ownership, rights, and privileges for each post that you make on this MB and the content therein, and you may reuse those posts in any way desired." And the following section (6.6) "NAWCC further agrees that it will not sell, transfer or license the right to copy and use threads from this MB to outside third parties."

So what exactly is the problem?

Perhaps it is a generational issue, and old guys like me (and several like-minded members of the NAWCC) believe that our knowledge, research results, opinions, and collections should be shared for the edification of others, in the hope of inspiring younger collectors to attain greater knowledge than we have acquired. I freely admit that I have learned most of what I know from others who were generous enough to mentor and share with me. It is only a recent development that I have run into some who believe that every "discovery" is a private holding to be monetized, and sold to those who wish to learn. That they are younger didn't occur to me, but perhaps you are right.
Well answered.
Me? I post in order to help others. I make errors and thankfully people like you correct me.
But my passion and intention is always to help others.

In that way, I care not of the above forum rules, which as you say the likes of WUS state the same (and worse)

That said, sadly the NAWCC forum is the MOST unfriendly forum I ever visit. Making (in my opinion) terrible comments and decisions, and worse 'biased' always to the 'old establishment'.
Until that ceases, the NAWCC is 'doomed to failure' as far as wristwatches are concerned.
For example, I referred someone to the Hamilton forum here, he has a very rare Hamilton (Oakley - from memory) - I explained that as far as Hamilton was concerned the expertise was here.
I was accused by a mod of being a 'disruptive renegade'! Why? Because I pointed someone to the best place for advice?

Once again, thanks for always sharing your vast knowledge and for always being polite!

adam
"We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done."
Visit Here:http://highercailber.com/
Adam R Harris

bobbee
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 10:47 pm

Re: Whats the NAWCC thinking ?

#6 Post by bobbee » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:44 am

Yes, I saw that in the Hamilton Oakley thread.
Didn't see where you were called a disruptive renegade though?
I have thought about not taking the time to post links or pictures on NAWCC forums any more, especially after having whole threads removed when just ONE picture was thought to be copyrighted. I was asked to provide proof of non-copyright on all photographs I had posted in the whole thread, of which there were many. My reply was "don't bother", as I was not going to search out a dozen or so old resources of several 100+ year old photos, most of which I knew were not copyrighted.
I will no longer post any photos on the NAWCC forums, not even links to them, as I have been moaned at for providing links on threads instead of pictures/photos!
You can't win, so I won't even try. The site is getting stultified by the worriers. When was the last time they got sued for photographic copyright breach?
"To steal ideas from one person is Plagiarism,
to steal from many is Research."

User avatar
watchdoc
Posts: 831
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:04 am

Re: Whats the NAWCC thinking ?

#7 Post by watchdoc » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:19 am

"When was the last time they got sued for photographic copyright breach?"

According to several Admin's and moderators..............NEVER
"A man is no better than what he leaves behind"
Cecil B. DeMille

Try to remember, Just because you read it on the internet, doesn't make it true!

User avatar
GLADIATOR
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Spain - Costa Blanca

Re: Whats the NAWCC thinking ?

#8 Post by GLADIATOR » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:30 am

watchdoc wrote:"When was the last time they got sued for photographic copyright breach?"

According to several Admin's and moderators..............NEVER
Does not mean they should not protect them selves from breaking the law.

When was last time I got stopped and breath aliased NEVER - does not mean I should drink and drive.

I agree to copyright and acknowledging other peoples work.

Adam
"We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done."
Visit Here:http://highercailber.com/
Adam R Harris

User avatar
watchdoc
Posts: 831
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:04 am

Re: Whats the NAWCC thinking ?

#9 Post by watchdoc » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:48 am

Adam, it's a "knee-jerk" reaction, many times without reasoning or common sense.

I've seen where a moderator removes a entire thread, not just the questionable post or link within that thread, all based on another members whining.

I think the "new" rules are somewhat ambiguous and need further clarification.

I can only equate the entire controversy to the "chicken little" syndrome.

Just my opinion
"A man is no better than what he leaves behind"
Cecil B. DeMille

Try to remember, Just because you read it on the internet, doesn't make it true!

User avatar
GLADIATOR
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:32 am
Location: Spain - Costa Blanca

Re: Whats the NAWCC thinking ?

#10 Post by GLADIATOR » Wed Feb 04, 2015 11:58 am

watchdoc wrote:Adam, it's a "knee-jerk" reaction, many times without reasoning or common sense.

I've seen where a moderator removes a entire thread, not just the questionable post or link within that thread, all based on another members whining.

I think the "new" rules are somewhat ambiguous and need further clarification.

I can only equate the entire controversy to the "chicken little" syndrome.

Just my opinion
Yes, I understand your point, and I have been treated very impolitely at that forum.

But I do support them in following both the law and common courtesy in forcing acknowledgement.

We should also remember NAWCC is governed also as a charitable trust.
Regards
Adam
"We judge ourselves by what we feel capable of doing, while others judge us by what we have already done."
Visit Here:http://highercailber.com/
Adam R Harris

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests