>>2027

i've been gone a few days still pounding the pavement…

>>2450

>>2453

>>2492

This speaks to the questions I had at the beginning about who would share with whom.

While I don't care about personal attribution, news outlets must.Their teams of lawyers make them care because there are real legal issues at stake for them.

I thinking about it, I conceived the following hypothetical situations:

Scenario A

I submit a work to outlet #1, babyfist submits it outlet #1

Outlet # 1 is now in a quandary as they do not know who actually 'owns' the content - to whom should they give attribution?

How can they publish it without knowing the correct attribution? What if I raise hell because they didn't attribute it to me? (I wouldn't but they don't know that) What if babyfist raises hell because they don't attribute it to him? (he wouldn't but they don't know that)

Scenario B

I submit a piece to outlet # 1 and they publish it.

Babyfist submits the same piece to outlet # 2 and they publish it with different attribution.

Both outlet # 1 and #2 have legal issues betwixt themselves.

This is not nit-picking, it has to deal with real issues outlets would encounter both in isolation and between each other (competitors or fellows) that can cause them problems. The idea is to not put them in a position in which they would experience a 'pain point' but facilitate smooth publishing with no bridges burnt. Keep those bridges in great working order to facilitate our eventual goals by thinking ahead about how our process can help or impede that and eliminating any obstacles to achievement of that.

>>2027

I will check it and see what you sent, ty

If website is WordPress and help is needed, I am here to help as I love that.

>>2523

I missed you, too! I have been missing and feel like I've been without my right arm.

>Hope the pavement pounding is going well

It is not so far. I've been busting ass making my own site to help with that. We'll see how it goes, I'll keep trying. And keep trying. And keep trying. Failure is not an option!

>>2525

I'm not actually worried, per se, and you are right, we need no personal attributions these are just things I thought of in the very beginning and are why I asked so many questions about it back then. I didn't bring this all up at the time because it was so new and I didn't want to cause waves and I had to think of a way to articulate it and do so at the appropriate time. This seems like the appropriate time. I really care and I want us to succeed beyond the planners' wildest dreams! I also firmly believe we will do so. We want to keep our strongk friends in their positions without causing them pain or difficulty,

and maintain our bridges for maximum and growing impact in the future. In fact, I want to make it as easy and painless as possible for our strongk friends to publish our content, so they have no worries about conflicts and their teams of lawyers have no concerns.

• IF it content is submitted as ABCU8, then no worries, it's coming from a single source (like AP). If content is being submitted under pen names (but not as ABCU8 or as from both but in an uncoordinated manner), that would or might cause a conflict within and between the outlets themselves for their own legal reasons.

• IF content is being submitted as a pen/real name via ABCU8 it would also eliminate conflicts.

→ There are writers for AP, AFP, Reuters and Gannet, but they are all under those respective banners.

Consider that some stories are reprinted with just those wire service brands directly, but some others are the brands + the author/s: "X

and Y for AP." Still others are not just straight re-printed/published but with additions from X publication's staff and they do credit those newswires as well: "D and F contributed to this story from AP"

If there is an agreed-upon Creative Commons attribution and content is submitted as from ABCU8 outlet and it's consistent across the board, then that would eliminate potential conflicts previously mentioned, as far as I can determine.

I want to help things go smoothly and help us grow, and do it in a way that is thoughtful and forward-thinking as to massive future growth. I have a weird autistic ability to look at a plan (I see things in my mind's eye in logic chains and exploded diagrams) and see potential pitfalls… It's not ever to be a "negative Nelly" but seriously thinking about potential hangups. Then it is necessary to find workarounds for those, and war-game those workarounds out for their potential pitfalls from multiple viewpoints (if A >then D is likely). I try to really think through steps to find the best possible plan to achieve desired outcome and add my perspective to hopefully accomplish that.

This is actually why I commented on the CC attribution - it should be uniform across the board and defined types of attribution decided as standard while we are still "young."

I think if you asked your lawyer he would most likely tell you the same things. XD

>>2529

'zactly!

If we make it as painless and smooth as possible for our strongk friends, it will yield greater rewards later. As babyfist said, we don't care about attribution or recognition but their lawyers are paid to keep them out of trouble or conflict so if we can help with that, and do it from the get-go, the better off we'll be.

>>2530

First - thank you for always being so open and understanding I really appreciate it, more than you know.

>site

Yes, sometimes you have to make a website to sell your skills which are more than can be put on a 1-page cv. It's also always good (and hopefully fun) to push your skills as much as possible. I love, Love, LOVE making web sites, sot it's also funtime for me, though it has taken me away from writing for here (sorry).

>author: John Cleer

Well, there are those from AP who sometimes get the AP+byline, but it's still AP so it works fine.

I try to be forward-thinking (like POTUS) and specifically to accommodate growth later - it's all about scalability. It's hard for others, especially outside, to respond to changes in direction later, so if policies and procedures can be worked out early, while thinking of the future, it saves pain later for all involved. If we can establish the 'brand' early, then even along the way, if someone posts as John Cleer, ABCU8 along the way there is no shock or confusion for our strongk friends or their colleagues (or others who are not expecting us) - it would be just like the AP.

I see no problem using their own model and framework to compete with them, and honestly, it would be something other newsrooms/publications/outlets would be familiar with, so would seem to be the smoothest way to proceed from the beginning and even taking into account massive expected growth later, it will scale just fine. Scalability is really what I'm thinking about, and if we do it right now, scaling upwards will not be confusing to anyone, which means more success with more reach and more consistent brand recognition (our trustworthiness and replacing the untrustworthy)

With that said, change is inevitable.

>M are you my lawyer?

kek no, lucky for your lawyer!

>>2532

wha-BAM!!

Well done! Tying in Prince Andrew & the Clintons, I'm not clear on, but the others - wow!

Maybe Hillary + Robert Byrd (KKK) connection?

>>2620

>make a visualization of the connections between the photos

FreeMind is good for that. You can paste the photos in and make connections however you want, very handy in fact.