Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
As to blogposts that are my own copyright, there are conditions laid out for them on A little note on further use conditions but in some blogposts the copyright might be shared.
For instance, in Chronicle of Susan Pevensie, I share it – insofar as I do anything original with them that I can have credit for - with inheritors of Clive Staples Lewis, for the concept of Narnia and of Aslan and Tash, and for the person Susan Pevensie and what appears of other persons involved in the Narniad, also with inheritor of John Ronald Reuel Tolkien for at least Audoin Errol, his childhood in Cornwall, his time voyage (The Lost Road), also with inheritors of Enid Blyton,also marginally with inheritors of Hannah and Barbera for Velma and her parents, whereas Gilbert Keith Chesterton’s Father Brown the copyright has expired and is no longer with his inheritors. The novel I am trying to write (and have not yet fully written, there are still lots of chapters missing) is fan fiction. As such it is primarily entertainment on the internet with a kind of publicity for the original authors. Nevertheless I hope that when it is finished, these inheritors will give their consent to commercial reproduction on paper, as I have already for my part in it given mine in conditions stated above.
There is quite another category of shared copyright issues. It concerns comments made by others, where I have debated them on diverse message boards or youtube or facebook.
In those cases, one can have doubts on my right to reproduce even on my blog without asking them. I normally nowadays do ask them implicitly by publishing the link to the blogpost involving their comments under these, so they can protest. Usually they do not. As to the fact of publishing what they are saying, as in what arguments diverse sides in diverse debates are actually using, I think it is a fair scoop for me. But as to the fact of getting money by republishing these things, I would like to have any editor doing so contact them insofar as possible and give them a fair share of the voluntary royalties, insofar as any. Or, if someone decides to republish such a debate without sending me royalties (which is possible according to conditions above) to also consult the codebators and ask for their permission. But if they want to say things like « you cannot publish that, I do not want this to be published » I think they are morally and juridically wrong, as some of them are public persons in their own right (like the Christian French politician Axel de Boer), some represent a public institution, some have chosen to be public by making their comments accessible (even sometimes under their own names) on publically accessible fora or in the comments under youtubes, some have anonymised themselves and can generally be presumed not to suffer much under real names by the fact of using pseudonyms (which I have reproduced), again others, such as private persons on FB have been anonymised by me, usually by me citing only initials, sometimes by me citing a first name or a nickname (as in the case of Drake and Pat or Grima Wormtongue – named for taking an attitude to me like to the one taken by that character to King Theoden). If they want part of royalties, I and other friends will try to identify them to the editors, so that they can do so, and if they do not want the anonymity offered by me, the initials can be exchanged for full names on their request (as with Micheline Albert Tawil Tramp, A Secular Carmelite).
Such are the modifications which generally speaking occur to my conditions due to the copyright of someone else being relevant, otherwise my conditions stand as given above in the link.
Nanterre University Library
Saint Angela Merici and
Translation of Saint John Chrysostom
PS, in the case where I extensively cite or reproduce wikipedia articles to which I have contributed, this is not an issue, since wikipedia is open source. I am not denying them any credit, since I openly state it. As for articles I started myself but which were deleted, the copyright can be considered as having been returned to me.