A short note from the h2g2 Editors: We have to point out that the only rules which count in the end are the official House Rules and Terms and Conditions - so while it could be useful in some cases to put these into context as done here, h2g2 Researchers should ultimately refer only to the official rules, backed up with guidance from the h2g2 Editors, and not to anything anyone else writes, which necessarily represents that individual's own particular view, and may be inaccurate, incomplete or not up to date. We are, however, always ready to listen to proposals (preferably constructive ones!) re. the official rules, but can't get into debate about what is essentially an individual's particular opinion about these rules, even when as well-expressed as here.

Contents | Naughty Words | Links and URLs | Flames, Trolls, Abuse | The Law | Misc

Note: As of the 18th December 2002, I am no longer maintaining this page. If you would like to take responsibility for it, please apply at the Community Job Slot. Thank you.

Any post or entry which breaks UK law is unacceptable. That's pretty clear, but there are a few points of interest which are worth highlighting. Amongst these are advocation, copyright, defamation, maybe more...

Advocation

In the UK, advocating breaking the law is also illegal as 'incitement'. Therefore advocating use of cannabis in a country in which cannabis is illegal is against UK law. However, it would be acceptable to advocate use of cannabis in countries where it is decriminalised. The moderators will assume that you live in the UK unless you say otherwise, so if you live in a country with more liberal laws than the UK you may wish to mention this in such posts.

Naturally, it is acceptable to advocate changes in the law, and lawful means of protesting unfair laws. Advocating unlawful protest is naturally unacceptable. Also, campaigning that crosses the line into harassment is unacceptable¹.

There is such a thing as implicit advocation. If you give detailed instructions for some criminal act, then it may be taken as implicit advocation of that act². It may also class as 'aiding and abetting' if somebody uses your information to perform that act.

On the other hand, if the Editors judge that is extremely unlikely that it will inspire anyone will be able to follow your instructions, then you can instruct and inform to your hearts content³. There may be other exemptions for entries which are judged harmless in other ways.

Copyright and Such

Intellectual property is a complicated business, best answered by the official h2g2 entry. However, this entry doesn't really explain trade marks and confidential information. Mark did give this advice though: "it's generally OK to use trade marks in reviews and so on, as long as they are acknowledged as trade marks of the relevant companies. However, it's not OK to use them in the wrong place, which most often happens when trade marks have slipped into everyday usage"⁴. In practice, I have yet to see a post moderated for breach of trade mark law, so it seems that most people's use of trade marks is perfectly acceptable. As h2g2 Support says, "don't get too wound up about it".

Copyright of edited entries and entries created as 'derivative works' such as those from the Flea Market has now been clarified in the Heavy Legal Stuff FAQ. What is still unclear (at least to me) is who owns the copyright of a derivative work, and what terms there may be to the sub-licensing.

Confidentiality is a tricky issue. One clarification that has been given by the Editors is that emails from italics, such as moderation emails, *may* be posted on h2g2 and indeed anywhere you want⁵. However, this conflicts with the advice given by BBC Legal⁶ In general, before viewing confidential material you will be asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement or some other legal document. It is not known whether private email from non-italics is classed as confidential. In any case you should remember the copyright laws as well⁷.

Defamation, Libel, Slander

These are all illegal, and they are also very complicated. Again, the official h2g2 entry is probably the best place to go.. In general you are likely to become 'offensive', 'flaming', or 'otherwise objectionable' well before you breach the law. h2g2 is very much more protective in this of known litigious companies or individuals than it is of researchers, who are unlikely to sue. If the same statement is made about McDonalds and your local independant kebab shop, then the one about McDonalds may well be removed while the one about the kebab shop remains. That's the world for you.