The new terms would have allowed the social networking giant to keep any content produced by users, such as photos and blog posts, even if someone deletes their profile.

At first glance, it seems like this would only be a problem for conspiracy theorists who are worried about a secret world government keeping tabs on them, or some such nonsense. Looking deeper though, this is something that could hurt anyone who puts their creative work on their profile.

By the time any of you read this online or in The Horizon next week, I plan on deleting all of the photography I’ve posted on my profile. I’ve used my Facebook page to keep in touch with friends, but also as a public portfolio for something I plan on making a career from. I thought it would be a good idea to have some samples of my work online, should an employer gain access to my profile. I intend to keep all the rights, provided they haven’t been infringed upon yet, to reproduce and sell my work. I don’t want anyone using my work for profit or posting my photos except myself.

It seems like a hasty move, since Facebook has reverted back to its old terms of service, but after reviewing them again, it still doesn’t seem like users have complete control over the content they’ve created and posted. I don’t want to run that risk, and neither should anyone who creates images or words for the world to see.

The current terms, and I’d imagine the new ones as well, are littered with legal jargon that will put you to sleep faster than an IU Board of Trustees meeting. But the terms are still important enough for artists of all kinds to review carefully. For a really good breakdown of the old terms, check out www.legalandrew.com’s article, “Facebook Isn’t Private, and Seven Other Things You Should Know.” He gives good explanations about what the terms of use really mean.

In the fourth part of the article, he talks about the rights a user gives up when they post anything on the Web site. Facebook assumes the right to use anyone’s content any way it sees fit, including advertising. They don’t even have to notify or pay the creator before using their work.

If Facebook has already used any of my work in promotional materials or anything else, that’s my own fault for not reading the fine print a little more carefully. However, I’ve learned my lesson about keeping ownership of my own material and control over how it’s used.

In some ways, it might seem cool to have a user’s photo in an advertisement for Facebook or some other major company. But if the creator doesn’t even get credit, much less money, for their creation, that hardly seems fair for a company to claim that work as their own intellectual property.

Plagiarism seems like something professors preach to make research papers more painful, but consider Facebook and the rights of what you’ve created. It could be just as painful to have your work stolen, even if you did click the “I Agree” button. The difference is you willingly forfeited your rights, even if you didn’t realize it before you created your profile.

I hope the people determining the policies for this Web site keep their users in mind. None of them would be making a profit if it weren’t for us and our interest in posting everything about ourselves, including our work, on there. Our rights should be kept intact.

Removing my work isn’t necessarily out of protest, rather for protecting it from being exploited without my permission. I don’t know that they’d be interested in any of it, but it’s not worth the risk of losing all of the rights that go along with creating. Keep that in mind next time you post a project you’re proud of, or a poem you wrote.

Admittedly, we all should have known the risks before we even thought about posting anything, but “I Agree” buttons are so impulsive, we tend to ignore the details above them. That’s not a good excuse, but you may want to remove your work and thereby retain your rights to it.

It wasn’t anything anyone said about either candidate, or how I felt about anyone winning or losing any election. Rather, it was the entire spectacle CNN’s corporate budget put on, particularly the fake hologram interview with Will.i.am.

Do we honestly need to fake a technology and interview someone in such a sensationalized manner? What happened to the live-via-satellite interviews? Are those too yesteryear?

Anderson Cooper stood there with his well-manicured platinum hair and smug expression, all while asking Will.i.am what he thought about the presidential election.

If Cooper is such a serious journalist, how the hell did he keep a straight face while he conducted this interview? Take a step further before that: Why did he agree to conduct this stupid sideshow?

I’ve mentioned the sets news organizations have put together for their coverage, and this election studio CNN has been using is, by far, the most ridiculous. Old men were using touch-screens that were likely, in actuality, operated by a young intern behind the scenes. Sensationalism has transcended exaggerated headlines and stretched stories. It’s seeped into the side of visual presentation.

I never felt like I was actually watching any kind of coverage. Everything CNN had on screen came straight from a bad episode of Star Trek.

My biggest gripe with these sets is that they’re another device used to mask bad reporting. Even if the reporting happens to be good, it’s hard to notice through the neon colors, computer-generated nonsense and the rest of the television tricks at their disposal.

Now that the elections are over, what else will CNN use this stage for? Are they stuck with it? Maybe we’ll get to holo-weather reports. That’s what I’ve been waiting for.

I have an idea. If you do not want your name in the Police Blotter, don’t do anything wrong. Seems very simple to me.

If you are caught driving while intoxicated, you have broken the law. Should the newspaper pretend it didn’t happen? Should the newspaper look the other way because it was a member of the SGA?

No, certainly not.

It really doesn’t matter if The Horizon printed a title with the name. It’s the same person who was out endangering lives by getting behind the wheel of a car after drinking.

I want to know if I have to be careful around campus due to drunken drivers. I want to know if there are drug dealers in the dorms. I want to know why the new furniture in the dorms is wet.

The Police Blotter has become a very popular feature. I believe it is because, for the first time, the IUS community is being informed of what is really going on, on campus as far as crime is concerned.

That’s a good thing.

IU Southeast is a very safe campus. The Police Blotter will make the campus safer by keeping the community informed of what is going on.

People do not get their names on the blotter because the broke a rule or a policy. They are on the blotter because they broke the law or have filed a complaint with the IUS Police. Crime is serious. Reporting crimes is also serious.

There is a certain lack of knowledge about the First Amendment and the rights it gives on this campus. It keeps me up at night. It worries me. I am concerned.

When a student throws away a bunch of newspapers, that’s censorship. That’s theft. It is very common on college campuses where the newspapers are “free.”

The Horizon is not free, except in its reporting of the news. Student Activity Fees and advertisers pay for The Horizon. Each student is allowed to have one copy free. Any more and it is theft.

I have been very happy with how The Horizon editors have handle pressure from the SGA to censor the newspaper. I will not pretend the SGA is not trying to pressure to censor, either. I know a skunk when I see one. For a group that is a governing body, the members don’t seem to know much about government and inalienable rights.

Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it is wrong. If the police arrest you, it means what you did is wrong.

Admittedly, I wanted the title of Senior Editor because I felt I had earned it: I’ve been on staff, in one capacity or another, for more than five years. I’ve gotten up early every Monday morning, picked up and delivered the newspaper since The Evening News stopped delivering it to campus. I’ve been on campus every Friday night through the school year since my second year of college, and I thought that alone deserved of some sort of distinction.

Aside from the prestige, if you will, there needs to be someone who’s responsible for the content of the paper. There had to be someone who was going to be the person called into an angry administrator’s office, if it ever had to come to that. I was willing to take that position.

That part doesn’t bother me. However, I don’t think anyone deserves any more distinction from anyone else.

The dynamic I’ve loved about The Horizon is our sense of shared responsibility. We all work together to produce the same newspaper, and we all care deeply about what goes into it. Not only that, but we often make group decisions on issues that inevitably face us. I’m not The Horizon, we are.

The more I think about it, the more I feel against titles. They’re arbitrary, and don’t designate anything, really. What does Senior Editor say, anyway? I’ve been here the longest?

While that’s true, it doesn’t mean I’m any better than the rest of my staff. Nor should it mean I necessarily have any more pull in decisions than they do.

Sure, it’s a point on my resume, but shouldn’t my work and references speak for themselves? Why does it matter that I had a title? I worked hard, and that’s all that should matter.

Anyway, that’s just a late-night thought of mine. We’ll see if anything changes.

I do think it would be cool for the editors not writing that week to talk about what the editors had written about and whether or not they feel the same way(s). If that’s not too confusing. lol

This is the only time I use the handicap doors on campus. It’s awfully difficult to push a hand truck full of newspapers through a door with one hand while the other is keeping the door open.

My gripe isn’t about people who use the automatic doors for no reason, it’s the fact that some of them don’t work, and there aren’t handicap access doors at every entrance to every building.

We have several students on campus who are in wheelchairs, whether they’re motorized or not, and they should have easier access to all the buildings on campus.

The back side of Crestview doesn’t have an automatic door at all, which forces students in wheelchairs to use the front door. The Activities Building has a handicap access, but on most Monday Mornings, at least, it’s locked and doesn’t open.

Who locks a handicap access door? That’s a slap in the face to people who might need to get into that building.

Also, the new addition to University Center North that leads into The Commons does not have a handicap access.

Either way, this is something the school needs to put more consideration behind.

Anyway, this should be an interesting experiment. Now the editors have an opportunity to write about what we cover and try to give a little of our perspective. The biggest difference is we can do this whenever we want, rather than waiting until our name pops up on our column schedule.

Of course, we still have a few policy-related things to iron out on here. Do we allow editors to pull pieces from here and use them in the newspaper? I’m not sure how I feel about that just yet. After all, we already publish our columns on our online portion and in the paper, and I’m not sure we really need the same opinion in three different mediums. Since I’m the first to put something in here, I’ll make sure to roll the idea around with the rest of the editorial staff.

That’s all for now. Give us your input, provided you’re reading this. You are our readership, and you are who we serve.

Thanks,

Jerod Clapp

The Horizon Editors’ Blog is the place to see what happens behind the scenes of The Horizon newspaper and The Horizon Newscast.

So, sit back, read and enjoy!

-Ron