Jomarac5

Aw, now you've gone and hurt my feelings. And you say that you've refrained from taking a "public swipe" at me? Think again 'my friend'. You better delete that part from your post before I get back with some examples. Leave the part there about no one giving a dadgum about your opinion though. It seems to fit. Chill out Buckwheat -- if you're going to dish it out, you'd better be prepared to take it. I'm outta here... *****

quote: mckee wrote:It's probably Jomarac5 frantically deleting all of his posts in order to prevent Jeremy from using them as a script to a blockbuster movie. Not likely. I stand behind the words that I write. Not like someone else who appears too embarrased to leave his original words there. quote: posted August 27, 2003 10:41 PM Deleted to to knowitall attitude I received. [This message was edited by TEAM 360 on August 28, 2003 at 12:24 PM.] Cry me a river... *****

I'd like to thank all of those who take the time to read posts carefully -- it helps in keeping coversations civilized. *****

CoronaKid and Mushtang; I've responded to Hydee's post by sending an e-mail and am awaiting a reply. Responding to your posts, makes no sense what-so-ever, as you don't have the answers to the questions that I've asked. *****

quote: Kealia wrote:I've never had a direct exchange with you and don't ever care to. Seems that we have something in common. The terms of use are unfair to all those that use this site. But if you don't want to pay attention to this, and instead, rant and rave about how you think I'm whining, or attacking, or trolling, that's your perogative. If there's no problem here, why isn't Jeremy answering the three questions? *****

These three questions, answered by Jeremy will clear this whole thing up: 1. Why is the wording in paragraph 2 of section 5 necessary? 2. Is there some other use planned for the intellectual property of those who use this site? 3. If there is no other use planned, why the need for us to give you the rights to these photos? *****

I just checked the poll results and here's what has come in so far: 41 users have voted - 17% say they always read the terms and conditions - 10% say they read them most of the time - 10% say they read them sometimes - 41% say they very rarely read the terms and conditions - 22% say they never read the terms and conditions Very interesting indeed -- it appears (from this unscientific poll) that more than 60% rarely or never read the terms and conditions before signing up or uploading images to the web. Is it any wonder that sites are able to sneak this kind of stuff through? Wake up people -- you're being taken advantage of. *****

Fuzzies, are you following me? As I already said several times, I don't have a problem with Jeremy using my images to promote geocaching.com -- but it needs to be specified in the terms of use agreement that way. I do have a problem with giving *unlimited rights* to the use of my intellectual property. That's just pushing it too far. *****

quote: Team GPSaxaphone wrote:He was just saying it was pretty straightforward. He didn't give his opinion on what it MEANS Well, then maybe he can explain how 'straightforward' the second paragraph is. It's his site, he should know what it MEANS. *****

Jeremy was just in here commenting on the legalize of the terms so this seems to be an appropriate place to ask him a question. The name calling really is a reflection on your ability to have a civil conversation. Way to go. *****

Warm Fuzzies -- is your name Jeremy? *****

Seneca, your narrow minded posts are no longer worthy of a reply. *****

Jeremy, why the wording in paragraph 2 of section 5? Is there some other use planned for the intellectual property of those who use this site? If not, I don't see the need for the wording. *****

Good points Sissy-n-CR, nice to see that some people understand the principle of this. *****

quote: canadazuuk wrote:What a spurious argument. Inflammatory. How rude. Saying that those who do not agree with you on this issue 'don't understand the value of intellectual property' is at best, a deceptive ploy. Deceptive? On my part? I hardly think so. If you don't *get* the part about owning your intellectual property then you don't get it, do you? Go read the 2nd paragraph in section 5 of the terms of use, Zuuky -- then tell me again who's being deceptive. A conspiracy theory? Take some more meds Zuuky -- you're obviously in need of them. BTW: Wily Javelina -- No, I wouldn't be upset if someone used my photo on a cache page -- as long as they asked permission first I wouldn't have a problem with it. Using it on a cache description page is not the same as using it for financial gain or commercial benefit. *****

quote: RobertM wrote:I don't think that's it. I believe what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. Now it appears someone's trying to take what's mine (and it doesn't really matter what it is) in a sneaky way by changing the "rules" without telling anyone. Now there's the nail getting hit directly on the head. Thanks RobertM. DrHeckle -- they way *I* talk to people is sad? Nice name calling pal. Give your head a shake, I'm only standing up for what's right. You can call it what you like. And there's no need to pull Woodsters into this. mckee -- the rights of my images are mine. Whether you think they are 'worthy' shots or not is immaterial -- the images are my property and Groundspeak is using doublespeak to obtain the legal rights to them. TX Hokie -- no it doesn't mean that you can be sued for putting your image to other use somewhere else, what it does mean is that you cannot give anyone else *exclusive* rights to the image, because you no longer own the *exclusive* rights. Ask Jeremy to explain the second paragraph in section 5 to you. CoronaKid -- just because *most* of the people don't know when something is wrong, doesn't make it right. Seneca -- it's not about family snapshots being worth something -- but just to set you straight, they are worth something -- to me. They are my property and someone is attempting to use legalize to get the rights to use them. In your position as member of the law community, you of all people should recognize this. Perhaps you're too wrapped up in your own sarcasm to understand it. RobertM's post sums it up the best -- what's mine is mine, and what's yours is yours. The language in the terms is slippery -- if you upload your images, you will be denying yourself full uninhibited ownership of the image and will be allowing someone else to use your property *without any* consideration to you. *****

quote: FONIX wrote:How do people react on the new term where you have to give away your copyright of your own photos? If this rule still persist, I will remove all pictures I've taken so far (that is not much) and will never put up any new either (and that could have been many...) There you have it FONIX, there are those who disagree with the new wording and there are those who don't understand the value of intellectual property. Trying to get those in the later category to realize the importance of protecting intellectual property is very difficult and that is why terms of use such as these are tolerated. I'm with you though, if the wording remains the same, I won't upload any more images. *****

quote: canadazuuk wrote:Such as? Please elaborate. Movie location scouts, travel agencies, special interest groups, etc... quote: canadazuuk wrote:What is the going rate for a 100k image of a fogged over view of Sumas Mountain? Probably nothing. But out of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of images, quite a few will be useable, don't you think? If the folks at Groundspeak don't have any intention of using yours and my images and other intellectual properties for any other purpose other than to promote their website, then why the need for the wording that is used in the terms of use agreement? *****

That's a very interesting perspective Zuuk, and I agree with you in principle on several points. You overlook one aspect however, that is very, very, important. If the folks at Groundspeak don't have any intention of using yours and my images and other intellectual properties for any other purpose other than to promote their website, then why the need for the wording that is used in the terms of use agreement? *****

Mushtang, where does this come from? This whole current discussion has been on topic. There was a mention of personal/professional opinion, but it too, was directly related to the discussion. Looks to me, that aside from a few initial off topic posts, yours is the only one that is off topic since the discussion got "serious". For your information, the entire purpose of this discussion is to make people aware of the terms and conditions. Wake up man. quote: RobertM wrote:What about if I put my terms and conditions under all the photos I upload on how they can / cannot be used? Then there's no confusion about who's stealing, ummm, I mean using, my photos. That's a very good question. It makes me wonder about another aspect -- When I signed up on the website, it was a completely different Terms Of Use that I agreed to. So what I want to know is this: Are the images that have been previously uploaded by users of the site, prior to the new Terms Of Agreement, exempt from the conditions of the new Terms of Agreement? On what date was this new agreement posted on the site? Another interesting fact to consider is that when you upload a photo through your profile page or through a cache log, you're not asked to agree to any terms or conditions -- you just upload the image. The site does, however require, when submitting a cache for approval, that you to select a checkbox to indicate that you have read and agree to the Terms Of Use Agreement. I suppose that at the time of selecting the box and submitting the cache, you'd be legally obligated to the new terms. If someone has been a member prior to the new agreement, and doesn't place a new cache but does upload photos to logs, it's quite conceivable that they may never become aware of the new terms. One more aspect that I think is very important (probably *the most* important to me personally) is that I've uploaded images to this site for the sole purpose of sharing them with other cachers and members of the general public who may have an in interest in caching. I do this very selflessly for the benefit of others -- no strings attached -- and the images clearly remain my personal property. My hope is that my photos will be viewed by others for the purpose of enhancing the cache experience. I feel somewhat betrayed by the language that is in the new agreement -- it's not allowing me to share those photographic moments with fellow cachers without my giving up some of the rights to that property. Doesn't seem necessary to me. ----- For those of you who are wondering what the differences are between the old and the new site conditions, you may find this interesting; The previous geocaching.com disclaimer <snip> Geocaching Disclaimer Geocaching.com is owned and operated by Grounded Inc. Information in the Geocaching.com database is updated regularly. Neither Grounded Inc., nor any agency, officer, or employee of Grounded Inc. warrants the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information and shall not be liable for any losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of this information, portions may be incorrect or not current. Any person or entity that relies on information obtained from Geocaching.com does so at his or her own risk. Geocaching, hiking, backpacking and other outdoor activities involve risk to both persons and property. There are many variables including, but not limited to, weather, fitness level, terrain features and outdoor experience, that must be considered prior to seeking or placing a Cache. Be prepared for your journey and be sure to check the current weather and conditions before heading outdoors. Always exercise common sense and caution. In no way shall Grounded Inc. nor any agency, officer, or employee of Grounded Inc., be liable for any direct, indirect, punitive, or consequential damages arising out of, or in any way connected with the use of this website or use of the information contained within. Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache. This website is for personal and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, excerpt, distribute, transmit, publish, license, create derivative works from, or sell any information, or services obtained from this website. Other products and companies referred to herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies or mark holders. Grounded Inc. reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices under which this website is offered. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2000 Grounded Inc. </snip> ***** [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on August 28, 2003 at 12:07 AM.]

quote: Wily Javelina wrote:"If you're not willing to enjoy yourself here, please do your caching elsewhere", whoops, did I steal that from someone. It's not a matter of anyone enjoying themselves here or not -- it's a matter of legally protecting what is yours. And just so you know, I enjoy myself just fine. Thanks. *****

quote: carleenp wrote:...a bunch of stuff pertaining to personal and professional legal mumbo jumbo Point taken. Thanks. *****

quote: carleenp wrote:Well first, I work for an appellate court, so I don't represent clients. Instead, I help decide how to interpret clauses like that! Anyway, personal faith has nothing to do with my legal thinking! If I represented a web site, I would suggest similar language. If I represented someone who took issue with the language, obviously I would look for interpretations that benefitted my client. It is that type of stuff that makes me glad I have a job where I get to try to find the correct answer to problems instead of whatever suits a given client! Second, you are right, it is offensive (as opposed to defensive). That is why it completely takes care of my example. But because of that, you are also right about how it could be used in an offensive (again as opposed to defensive) manner. So I understand your concerns. I just personally am not concerned about it. If people are, then yes, it is good they are aware of it so that they don't accidentally give an unlimited license. Thus why it is actually a good idea to read all that stuff! I'm OK with this reply. Thanks. *****

quote: Seneca wrote:Jomarac5 - did you just skip over the word “personal” when you read that line or do you not know the difference between “personal” and “professional”. Perhaps you should look it up. Skipped over or don't know the difference? Hardly. She's mentioned in this thread that she's a lawyer and she's giving an opinion on legal language here that is read by others reading this thread that is, perhaps not good advice, personally, or professionally. *****

quote: carleenp wrote:1) I stated later *who really knows* And that's the point, isn't it? quote: carleenp wrote:2) Yeah, it is really broad, but because of that it meets that purpose under just about any circumstances. Not speaking about fairness to users here, just speaking of my personal opinion of why that language could be there. Of course it can be broader than that if geocaching desires to make it so. My opinion was based on my personal faith that they wouldn't, not on legal reasoning. I hope when you're representing a client that you don't rely on your personal faith. The section that we're talking about is not designed to be defensive, it's designed offensively to give them the right to use yours or my images and/or intellectual property *any* way that they choose -- on the site, or off of the site, today, tomorrow, or five years from now. This is the aspect that is too broad for my liking. Seneca, I disagree that it is necessary for the language to be this way. I don't see where there is a *need* to own the rights to yours and my images beyond the scope that is necessary to operate their website. It's too broad. *****