What kind of sharing percentage are you considering between NP and the content creator if they opt to allow ads? Will it be per news item, or some kind of average based on their overall contributions?

I wrote a note to Mike Tippett asking about the proposed revenue sharing and how it would work.  I haven't yet gotten a reply that answers my questions.  But here are some thoughts:

1. The type of advertising to be accepted is a critical factor.  I would not want my work displayed next to ads for porn; government agencies or defense contractors who could attempt to exert editorial control and influence; "personal" products,  dating or escort services, "easy money" schemes, etc.

2. I believe that those who contribute truly original work should receive a greater share than those who simply cut and paste (and possibly violate the copyrights of others).

3. The revenue sharing should be significant and not a token. National syndicates typically split revenues 50-50 with authors.  That would be a good starting point for the discussion.  I am not a lawyer, but I do know that the "terms and conditions" laid out thus far lack specificity, and thus would not be the basis for a legally binding contract due to that lack of specificity.

4. Any license must be non-exclusive and should stipulate that exhibition here will not be subject to content alteration, with the exception of ensuring that works containing foul language or ad hominem attacks are subject to editing for such content.

As someone who has had his own advertiser-supporter TV show, I respect the right of the site owners to gain remuneration for their efforts.  But be advised that the presence of advertising will change the site significantly.  I know full well the influence that "paying customers" can try to exert over content -- despite assurances by site owners and editors that they can't be swayed by the almighty dollar.

My suggestion is that advertising be LIMITED to "splash" pages, indexes and page border banners.  Those annoying ads that cover up content until "closed", or animated ads that constantly jump around and cause headaches, like those "you're a winner!" ads, should be banned. And, as stated above, ad policy should be tightly controlled to guard against an advertiser gaining influence over content.

In a perfect world, advertising would be limited to certain categories, such as non-profit foundations,  food and beverage companies, providers of personal electronics, arts and entertainment products, etc.  There is far too much PR-firm generated content on NP as it is.  Please don't let the acceptance of advertising clutter this site up to a point where contributors have to seek another home.

Thanks, and I would like to hear Mike's thoughts on these points.

I wish this site prosperity and information stability for Year 2009.

It is most important to keep current events open to those who experience or witness it first.  There will be mistakes without crosschecking facts.  Yet to delay the dissemination of the news to the public (with verification delays) might be worse than not publishing fresh information at all.

I think it will become serious for there to be a crack down on images that people didn't take themselves, because, although not likely, the website could get sued for profiting off of copyrighted images. 

I do agree its great to try to choose advertisers with a conscience but also understand that the website probably needs revenue. 

I also wonder if the website has a donate feature. 

Update: Is there a method of flagging images that are clearly not the property of the person who posted them? And some kind of due process for a person to prove ownership or remove the image etc. 

Ok, I have some questions about this whole thing.

I hardly ever log in here.  The only reason I'm a member is because of people on flickr asking me to allow them to use my photos in articles, but them needing me to post it here first.  So I did that for a few photos. Anyway, I don't know my way around this site.  I just spent a half hour or so looking at the terms and conditions and all that, I looked around the site for threads in forums that might address my question, but I find no answer.

My question is this:  If NowPublic is going to use my work commercially, giving me "the opportunity to join us in monetizing [my] contributions in the future," then how do they intend on paying me?   Why haven't I needed to fill in some form with an address for them to mail a check to, or an account for them to deposit money? 

This just sounds like they really only want permission for them to make money off my work and not pay me at all.  At least, that's how it seems since I see no straigtforward effort (equal to the email notice I recieved, and the mandatory decision page I was given when I just signed in) to actually reimburse me at all.

I changed my settings back to not use my work commercially because of this.  I'll reconsider if they clarify this whole matter.  

To contact me, use flickr.  I hardly ever log into this site and probably won't be able to find this specific forum again.

Scrivener,

Thank  you for your thoughtful post.  As we develop the details of this plan we will be mindful of the preferences of our members so these kinds of details are very useful.  Thanks for outlining your concerns.

As for specific questions about dates and the types of ads that will be displayed the we are currently in the process of working out revenue relationships with our partners.  Until we finalize those we aren’t able to make any firm promises to our members.  That is why we’ve avoided publishing any concrete numbers.  Whatever the ultimate arrangement, you will always have the option of not participating if you don’t think it is fair.  So by opting in right now you are not losing anything.  As the details of these programs become clearer to us, we will be able to provide you with things like dollar amounts and percentages. 

There is currently only a way to tip users but not the site.  If you enter your Paypal credentials other members can send you a tip.

Best,

M.

If we start to look to all pictures and videos in NP library i guess they have to delete roughly 90% of all material. A lot of images on the internet say nothing about copyrights, so they are used frequenly everywhere.

But although there is no copyright statement with the photo there is always a right by the owner of the image. And the owner of the photo has not to mention that explicit, because it is a fact when the image, photo, video, cartoon or what so ever is created.

So in fact there is always a copyright. The website can be sued, but that will in most cases only happen when u use material with a copyright statement, like you see on the big news sites.

For NP i gues there will change a lot, because you are going commercial now. And then thinks are changing rapidly. May be it is a good idea to clear the whole library and start with new rules for adding pictures, videos and other uploads.

Agree with your questions? Why is there no answer. In three days time NP goes commercial and all we know is that we can choose out off two options for our account.

Ok, i understand but it is only three days to go till January 1 and we know that we can choose out off two options for our account. That's it.

Does this mean I can make money?

"Please indicate your choice below."

http://my.nowpublic.com/user/license

The opt page appears to be broken. i have no choices visible to me, in IE or Firefox.

Nice catch. The new license agreement came into effect on Jan 1, 2009, before which we had a 1-month opt in/out period for pre-existing content.  If you have any questions or need any clarifications, you're welcome to PM me.

(Sentences like that always sound dismissive, but seriously. You can PM me!)

I agree mostly with Scrivener.  It is however difficult to limit advertising to certain areas. Either you do it or you don't, except for advertising that is unacceptable. A set of guidelines have to be set and there has to be close scrutiny of the advertisers content.
Obviously the preferred advertising should be in the context of the Channel.  But this isn't always possible and if a contributor is interested in compensation from the advertiser then you also have to be willing to allow any type of advertisement next to your article. It does look odd and takes away the message a little, but it is done everywhere. 

I believe there is a difference between original and cut and paste content. Also any unauthorized changes to content by anyone has to be prevented.
Allowing advertising changes the game, but bills have to be paid and I think that those who contribute should be compensated for their content based on what the norm is in the industry.

Thanks, and I would like to hear Mike's thoughts on these points.