[grellas]

See my comment below in this thread about why the commenter is normally the owner of comments having some minimal creativity absent terms of use that assign the rights to the site owner.

Any owner of rights can give such rights up in part while still retaining ownership of the materials by giving a license to someone else to use such materials for specified purposes. For example, I might submit an article to a journal under terms where I retain the copyright while giving them a license to publish the article once in their journal.

With comments, there is no express license involved but rather an implied one. If I have impliedly agreed that the site can display my comment under its customary policies, the law treats that as an implied license (i.e., an implied granting of a permission) for the site owner to display such comment under its customary terms and, if such terms include a practice by the site owner of making such submissions irrevocable, I impliedly agree to that as well when I make my submission.

The law can get murky in these areas but this is a basic analysis of how you can retain ownership while still giving up certain rights to the site owner.

[jhancock]

thanks grellas. As always, you provide clear and professional understanding for us laymen.

My own personal attitude when I post something is that I don't own it. Since I lose most controls associated with traditional ownership, it helps me sleep better to not draw a fine legal argument and just assume I don't really own my comments. But of course, I don't post anywhere but HN, so I also make an assumption about pg and the community's attitude of what is the right thing to do.