Does Groundspeak secure model releases for images of people posted in the banners?

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I'm pretty sure an individual does not need to have model releases for posting a non commercial image online, but if Groundspeak posts an image in the banners, is it then a commercial image, requiring a model release? You might want to have your team make sure.

[Keystone]

See section 6 of the website Terms of Use.

[+baloo&bd]

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

See section 6 of the website Terms of Use.

Of course I knew that would be the answer given.

 

6. License to Use Submissions

All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, “Submissions”) remain the property and copyright of the original author. If You submit Submissions to Groundspeak, You must adhere to any applicable submission guidelines that may be posted from time to time on the Site. By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.

 

The foregoing license rights are intended to provide to Groundspeak all rights under existing and future laws, including without limitation all rights under copyright and any other rights personal to You to publish the Submission on the Site, use the Submission in publicity and promotional materials for the Site and to create new Sites or derivative works (including without limitation by combining the Submission with other content) for public display or performance via any and all media or technology now known or later developed. The foregoing rights may be licensed and sublicensed through unlimited tiers of third parties.

 

That's a nice peice of work, and allows Groundspeak a great deal of room to do what they want, however it doesn't answer the question. I ask the question to point out to Groundspeak that there may be a spot where they need to add further protection for themselves.

 

Example. As the photographer, I post a picture(in a non commercial capacity) and Groundspeak is allowed to use it for any commercial purpose they like without paying me. This is understood, and no different from any other website. No big deal.

 

If I post a picture of Cacher X from an event (in a non commercial capacity) I don't think a model release is required, as I am not making any money from the image. However if Groundspeak then uses that image in a commercial caracity to generate income, do THEY need to secure a model release from the persons portrayed in the image.

 

That is the question, and is not covered in section 6. I ask this in order that Groundspeak might look into it and protect themselved if that is needed. This is probabaly something that should be checked by their lawers if nobody has thought of the issue yet.

Edited April 15, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[O-Mega]

See section 6 of the website Terms of Use.

Of course I knew that would be the answer given.

 

6. License to Use Submissions

All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, “Submissions”) remain the property and copyright of the original author. If You submit Submissions to Groundspeak, You must adhere to any applicable submission guidelines that may be posted from time to time on the Site. By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.

 

The foregoing license rights are intended to provide to Groundspeak all rights under existing and future laws, including without limitation all rights under copyright and any other rights personal to You to publish the Submission on the Site, use the Submission in publicity and promotional materials for the Site and to create new Sites or derivative works (including without limitation by combining the Submission with other content) for public display or performance via any and all media or technology now known or later developed. The foregoing rights may be licensed and sublicensed through unlimited tiers of third parties.

 

That's a nice peice of work, and allows Groundspeak a great deal of room to do what they want, however it doesn't answer the question. I ask the question to point out to Groundspeak that there may be a spot where they need to add further protection for themselves.

 

Example. As the photographer, I post a picture(in a non commercial capacity) and Groundspeak is allowed to use it for any commercial purpose they like without paying me. This is understood, and no different from any other website. No big deal.

 

If I post a picture of Cacher X from an event (in a non commercial capacity) I don't think a model release is required, as I am not making any money from the image. However if Groundspeak then uses that image in a commercial caracity to generate income, do THEY need to secure a model release from the persons portrayed in the image.

 

That is the question, and is not covered in section 6. I ask this in order that Groundspeak might look into it and protect themselved if that is needed. This is probabaly something that should be checked by their lawers if nobody has thought of the issue yet.

 

Would that be like someone posting a picture of Signal on my website and then me taking that picture and using it for an ad?

[+Renegade Knight]

...Would that be like someone posting a picture of Signal on my website and then me taking that picture and using it for an ad?

 

Sometimes it does help to reverse things so you can see the question more clearly. I was thinking of Keystones answer myself until you reversed it. I have no idea how a models release works or why it's needed.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

See section 6 of the website Terms of Use.

Of course I knew that would be the answer given.

 

6. License to Use Submissions

All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, “Submissions”) remain the property and copyright of the original author. If You submit Submissions to Groundspeak, You must adhere to any applicable submission guidelines that may be posted from time to time on the Site. By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.

 

The foregoing license rights are intended to provide to Groundspeak all rights under existing and future laws, including without limitation all rights under copyright and any other rights personal to You to publish the Submission on the Site, use the Submission in publicity and promotional materials for the Site and to create new Sites or derivative works (including without limitation by combining the Submission with other content) for public display or performance via any and all media or technology now known or later developed. The foregoing rights may be licensed and sublicensed through unlimited tiers of third parties.

 

That's a nice peice of work, and allows Groundspeak a great deal of room to do what they want, however it doesn't answer the question. I ask the question to point out to Groundspeak that there may be a spot where they need to add further protection for themselves.

 

Example. As the photographer, I post a picture(in a non commercial capacity) and Groundspeak is allowed to use it for any commercial purpose they like without paying me. This is understood, and no different from any other website. No big deal.

 

If I post a picture of Cacher X from an event (in a non commercial capacity) I don't think a model release is required, as I am not making any money from the image. However if Groundspeak then uses that image in a commercial caracity to generate income, do THEY need to secure a model release from the persons portrayed in the image.

 

That is the question, and is not covered in section 6. I ask this in order that Groundspeak might look into it and protect themselved if that is needed. This is probabaly something that should be checked by their lawers if nobody has thought of the issue yet.

 

Would that be like someone posting a picture of Signal on my website and then me taking that picture and using it for an ad?

 

Yes, I think so...While you had the photographers permissino to use their photos, you did not have Groundspeaks permission to use the image of Signal. You would need their permission, just as they would need permission from the individual portrayed in an image they use( the way I understand model releases).

 

I'm not a laywer, just pointing out that Groundspeaks laywers should look into this.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

...Would that be like someone posting a picture of Signal on my website and then me taking that picture and using it for an ad?

 

Sometimes it does help to reverse things so you can see the question more clearly. I was thinking of Keystones answer myself until you reversed it. I have no idea how a models release works or why it's needed.

Model releases are used by photographers when they are going to make money from a picture of a person. It is similar to section 6, but the photographer would be in Groundspeaks position.

 

Basically, I'm allowed to take a photo of you, and use it for non commercial purpose(hang it on my wall), but If I want to make prints and sell them(or any other commercial use), I need your permission.

Edited April 15, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+sbell111]

...Would that be like someone posting a picture of Signal on my website and then me taking that picture and using it for an ad?

 

Sometimes it does help to reverse things so you can see the question more clearly. I was thinking of Keystones answer myself until you reversed it. I have no idea how a models release works or why it's needed.

Model releases are used by photographers when they are going to make money from a picture of a person. It is similar to section 6, but the photographer would be in Groundspeaks position.

 

Basically, I'm allowed to take a photo of you, and use it for non commercial purpose(hang it on my wall), but If I want to make prints and sell them(or any other commercial use), I need your permission.

If only an attorney had seen your question and replied. Hmmm.

[+Dgwphotos]

Model releases are only required for commercial use. Groundspeak is not using the photos to sell a product or selling the photos, but for editorial use, just like newspaper photos.

[+Prime Suspect]

See section 6 of the website Terms of Use.

Of course I knew that would be the answer given.

 

6. License to Use Submissions

All comments, articles, tutorials, screenshots, pictures, graphics, tools, downloads, and all other materials submitted to Groundspeak in connection with the Site or available through the Site (collectively, “Submissions”) remain the property and copyright of the original author. If You submit Submissions to Groundspeak, You must adhere to any applicable submission guidelines that may be posted from time to time on the Site. By submitting any Submission to Groundspeak, You grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, transferable, perpetual, irrevocable, fully-paid royalty-free license and right to use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit, modify and create derivative works of, license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of, publicly display and publicly perform that Submission for any purpose and without restriction or obligation to You.

 

The foregoing license rights are intended to provide to Groundspeak all rights under existing and future laws, including without limitation all rights under copyright and any other rights personal to You to publish the Submission on the Site, use the Submission in publicity and promotional materials for the Site and to create new Sites or derivative works (including without limitation by combining the Submission with other content) for public display or performance via any and all media or technology now known or later developed. The foregoing rights may be licensed and sublicensed through unlimited tiers of third parties.

 

That's a nice peice of work, and allows Groundspeak a great deal of room to do what they want, however it doesn't answer the question. I ask the question to point out to Groundspeak that there may be a spot where they need to add further protection for themselves.

 

Example. As the photographer, I post a picture(in a non commercial capacity) and Groundspeak is allowed to use it for any commercial purpose they like without paying me. This is understood, and no different from any other website. No big deal.

 

If I post a picture of Cacher X from an event (in a non commercial capacity) I don't think a model release is required, as I am not making any money from the image. However if Groundspeak then uses that image in a commercial caracity to generate income, do THEY need to secure a model release from the persons portrayed in the image.

 

That is the question, and is not covered in section 6. I ask this in order that Groundspeak might look into it and protect themselved if that is needed. This is probabaly something that should be checked by their lawers if nobody has thought of the issue yet.

 

So, wouldn't you be the one in legal trouble? Since you're the one uploading it to a commercial site, with the TOU section that you are aware of, the onus would be on you to obtain whatever release is necessary to allow you to upload it to a commercial site that may use it for commercial purposes.

 

INALBIPOOTV

[+Renegade Knight]

Model releases are only required for commercial use. Groundspeak is not using the photos to sell a product or selling the photos, but for editorial use, just like newspaper photos.

 

I'd say a commercial site using them in a banner on their homepage for geocaching.com qualifies as commecial use. Showing the fun that caching is benefits their bottom line.

 

That said I wonder what flicr, photobucket etc. have for a TOS/TOU

[+Dgwphotos]

Model releases are only required for commercial use. Groundspeak is not using the photos to sell a product or selling the photos, but for editorial use, just like newspaper photos.

 

I'd say a commercial site using them in a banner on their homepage for geocaching.com qualifies as commecial use. Showing the fun that caching is benefits their bottom line.

 

That said I wonder what flickr, photobucket etc. have for a TOS/TOU

 

I'm not so sure a lawyer would see it that way.

[+TotemLake]

Model releases are only required for commercial use. Groundspeak is not using the photos to sell a product or selling the photos, but for editorial use, just like newspaper photos.

 

I'd say a commercial site using them in a banner on their homepage for geocaching.com qualifies as commecial use. Showing the fun that caching is benefits their bottom line.

 

That said I wonder what flickr, photobucket etc. have for a TOS/TOU

 

I'm not so sure a lawyer would see it that way.

It gets pretty sticky.

 

This much I do know...There are fair use laws of copyrighted material where I can use the material in research papers and it is subject to the copyright holder's request to remove said material if they had it in their TOS/TOU to gain explicit permission first.

 

According to the TOS/TOU of Groundspeak when I upload a picture I give up the rights to the material for use by Groundspeak.

 

(It's my guess at this point as I'm no lawyer.) That being said, when I'm taking pictures at a geocaching event, or cache, it is implied I'm going to upload those pictures to Groundspeak. All participants in that picture, allow there is an implied permission unless otherwise stated verbally or written by that participant. Then upon that protest, a model's release would be required or the picture altered to satisfy the objection.

[+Thrak]

If only an attorney had seen your question and replied. Hmmm.

 

Heh, I had to laught at this. I know what you mean but perhaps the OP doesn't get the point of this particular reply...........

[+Renegade Knight]

If only an attorney had seen your question and replied. Hmmm.

 

Heh, I had to laught at this. I know what you mean but perhaps the OP doesn't get the point of this particular reply...........

Attorneys quite often are not allowed to give legal advice outside their employment. If they did...they would disclaim it. Sometimes it's hard to tell when legal advice and practice ends and an educated personal opinion on a legal topic begins.

[Keystone]

See section 6 of the website Terms of Use.

My post used a smiley, and appears to the right of a character from a popular children's cartoon.

 

When selecting an attorney, I advise you to choose one who doesn't have a cartoon avatar on their business card, and who doesn't use smilies when writing legal advice.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

If only an attorney had seen your question and replied. Hmmm.

 

Heh, I had to laught at this. I know what you mean but perhaps the OP doesn't get the point of this particular reply...........

I had my suspicions, but could not be sure which post sbell111 was refering to. Anyway, my point was...Just in case this was not an issue that had been previously considered by Groundspeak, it would be woth it for them to consider it. I don't know if the banner images qualify as commercial use or not (looking back at what kinds of things have been described as commercial links, I would think these might be considered commercial use).

[+billandlore]

So if I show up in the crowd shot of a basketball game that happens to end up in SI, Who do I go after for my modeling fee?

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

So if I show up in the crowd shot of a basketball game that happens to end up in SI, Who do I go after for my modeling fee?

I would guess that possibility was covered in the fine print on the back of your ticket.

[+baloo&bd]

If only an attorney had seen your question and replied. Hmmm.

 

Heh, I had to laught at this. I know what you mean but perhaps the OP doesn't get the point of this particular reply...........

I had my suspicions, but could not be sure which post sbell111 was refering to. Anyway, my point was...Just in case this was not an issue that had been previously considered by Groundspeak, it would be woth it for them to consider it. I don't know if the banner images qualify as commercial use or not (looking back at what kinds of things have been described as commercial links, I would think these might be considered commercial use).

 

I think that most have missed that the reason this obviously ridiculous thread was started was for you to try to make your point from another thread on commercial caches.

 

Dupe thread.

Edited April 16, 2008 by baloo&bd

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

If only an attorney had seen your question and replied. Hmmm.

 

Heh, I had to laught at this. I know what you mean but perhaps the OP doesn't get the point of this particular reply...........

I had my suspicions, but could not be sure which post sbell111 was refering to. Anyway, my point was...Just in case this was not an issue that had been previously considered by Groundspeak, it would be woth it for them to consider it. I don't know if the banner images qualify as commercial use or not (looking back at what kinds of things have been described as commercial links, I would think these might be considered commercial use).

 

I think that most have missed that the reason this obviously ridiculous thread was started was for you to try to make your point from another thread on commercial caches.

 

Dupe thread.

Umm...No it was not, so why don't you....well whatever.

 

baloo&bd, you are completely off base in your accusations, and I believe that accusatiions like this are both OFF TOPIC, and NOT RESPECTFUL. Both of those things are outside the forum guidelines, so if we could please remain ON TOPIC, and RESPECTFUL of one another, that would be greatly appreciated.

 

I am not here to waste my time and play whatever forum games you people are used to in other places. I have not made any point in this thread other than that Groundspeak needs to be aware of whether this is an issue or not. If they have already looked at the angles, good for them, if they have not, maybe they should, for their own protection. If I wanted to do what you accuse me of doing, I will make it clear what my intent is.

 

I'm really getting fed up with all the accusations from some who think I am trying to serve some ulterior motive. I could give a care over whether Groundspeak has a model release or not. I am a photographer, and after reading the section 6, it was just a thought that entered my mind about how Groundspeak protects themselves(or doesn't, if they don't want to).

Edited April 16, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

I think that most have missed that the reason this obviously ridiculous thread was started was for you to try to make your point from another thread on commercial caches.

 

Dupe thread.

I wonder if you are referring back to that thread where I agreed that the(commercial) links in question SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED? If I was trying to duplicate that thread, or make some point from there, I just don't see the logic? Do you think I say one thing there and then try to argue against my own opinion here? Maybe you should go back and read what I wrote in that thread.

 

I suppose, now that I have been unable to explain myself in some other topic where some posters were very active, that any thread I start or any opinion I state will be viewed with some ulterior motive? Well I don't play those games. If I want to play retarded games, I can go to Pogo. For that matter, anyone else who wants to play retarded games could go there too. It's free, and you actually get points, but I suppose that is beside the point, since I you get points here too?.

Edited April 16, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+Dgwphotos]

So if I show up in the crowd shot of a basketball game that happens to end up in SI, Who do I go after for my modeling fee?

I would guess that possibility was covered in the fine print on the back of your ticket.

 

That's editorial use. It's the same reason a newspaper can run a photo of someone without obtaining a model release.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

That said I wonder what flicr, photobucket etc. have for a TOS/TOU

 

You retain the rights to photos you post on Yahoo's Flickr. However, you grant Yahoo a license to use photos posted in public areas. Yahoo does not pay royalties for the use of photos.

 

Yahoo can use your photos to promote Flickr. Yahoo also claims the right to modify or adapt your publicly posted photos.

 

And if Microsoft takes over Yahoo... what happens next?

 

DCC

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

So if I show up in the crowd shot of a basketball game that happens to end up in SI, Who do I go after for my modeling fee?

I would guess that possibility was covered in the fine print on the back of your ticket.

 

That's editorial use. It's the same reason a newspaper can run a photo of someone without obtaining a model release.

I guess that would be the same for these banners. That covers what I was wondering about.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

That said I wonder what flicr, photobucket etc. have for a TOS/TOU

 

You retain the rights to photos you post on Yahoo's Flickr. However, you grant Yahoo a license to use photos posted in public areas. Yahoo does not pay royalties for the use of photos.

 

Yahoo can use your photos to promote Flickr. Yahoo also claims the right to modify or adapt your publicly posted photos.

 

And if Microsoft takes over Yahoo... what happens next?

 

DCC

It seems to be a standard among any place where you might upload a photo. I can understand the need to protect the company, we all have to just hope that it is not abused. Edited April 16, 2008 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+Lightning Jeff]

That's editorial use. It's the same reason a newspaper can run a photo of someone without obtaining a model release.

I guess that would be the same for these banners. That covers what I was wondering about.

Or if not that, Washington's law has an exception for "insignificant, de minimis, or incidental use." I suspect the rotating images on the front page, drawn from images uploaded by members, would meet that exception. (Of course, I am not your attorney, this is not legal advice and if you rely on it, you're probably screwed.)

[+TotemLake]

(Of course, I am not your attorney, this is not legal advice and if you rely on it, you're probably screwed.)

Now there's a disclaimer I can relate to.

[+carleenp]

So if I show up in the crowd shot of a basketball game that happens to end up in SI, Who do I go after for my modeling fee?

I would guess that possibility was covered in the fine print on the back of your ticket.

 

That's editorial use. It's the same reason a newspaper can run a photo of someone without obtaining a model release.

 

The whole realm of editorial use likely covers most issues that could arise with the banner photos. Basically a photo of a person openly taken in a public place is fine for "editorial use." It can even be sold to another entity for editorial use, even if it is a commercial entity, without a model release.

 

Where model releases come into play are when a separate product is made that uses the person's image specifically in some way for profit (or perhaps potential profit). So if Groundspeak were to use photos of cachers for say, their museum maze or something like that, they would likely want to seek releases from people in the photos to cover the situation of photos that portray people who have not agreed to the terms of use license.

 

As for the earlier suggestion that Groundspeak's lawyer consider this stuff, having talked to him on various occasions and having personally seen Groundspeak's model release form, I'm pretty sure that he has it covered.

 

Oh, and I am a lawyer, but I am not "your" lawyer, nor am I offering or providing you with legal services in any way. Sorry... standard disclaimer....

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

So if I show up in the crowd shot of a basketball game that happens to end up in SI, Who do I go after for my modeling fee?

I would guess that possibility was covered in the fine print on the back of your ticket.

 

That's editorial use. It's the same reason a newspaper can run a photo of someone without obtaining a model release.

 

The whole realm of editorial use likely covers most issues that could arise with the banner photos. Basically a photo of a person openly taken in a public place is fine for "editorial use." It can even be sold to another entity for editorial use, even if it is a commercial entity, without a model release.

 

Where model releases come into play are when a separate product is made that uses the person's image specifically in some way for profit (or perhaps potential profit). So if Groundspeak were to use photos of cachers for say, their museum maze or something like that, they would likely want to seek releases from people in the photos to cover the situation of photos that portray people who have not agreed to the terms of use license.

 

As for the earlier suggestion that Groundspeak's lawyer consider this stuff, having talked to him on various occasions and having personally seen Groundspeak's model release form, I'm pretty sure that he has it covered.

 

Oh, and I am a lawyer, but I am not "your" lawyer, nor am I offering or providing you with legal services in any way. Sorry... standard disclaimer....

Thanks, I was pretty sure they had probabaly looked into it, but like I said, after reading section 6, it was just a question that entered my mind. For products like the calendar from a few years ago, they would want to have the sign off. This answers my wonderings very well, so this topic can be closed whenever the mods. see fit. Thanks.

[bogleman]

If you ask - a link to an old thread fitting for this thread

[+carleenp]

If you ask - a link to an old thread fitting for this thread

 

I provided some pictures and model releases for that.

 

It is kind of fun looking back through all the photos there!

Edited April 17, 2008 by carleenp

[+Dgwphotos]

If you ask - a link to an old thread fitting for this thread

 

I provided some pictures and model releases for that.

 

It is kind of fun looking back through all the photos there!

 

It sets me to wondering what happened with that project.

[+Michael]

So if I show up in the crowd shot of a basketball game that happens to end up in SI, Who do I go after for my modeling fee?

I would guess that possibility was covered in the fine print on the back of your ticket.

 

That's editorial use. It's the same reason a newspaper can run a photo of someone without obtaining a model release.

 

The whole realm of editorial use likely covers most issues that could arise with the banner photos. Basically a photo of a person openly taken in a public place is fine for "editorial use." It can even be sold to another entity for editorial use, even if it is a commercial entity, without a model release.

 

Where model releases come into play are when a separate product is made that uses the person's image specifically in some way for profit (or perhaps potential profit). So if Groundspeak were to use photos of cachers for say, their museum maze or something like that, they would likely want to seek releases from people in the photos to cover the situation of photos that portray people who have not agreed to the terms of use license.

 

As for the earlier suggestion that Groundspeak's lawyer consider this stuff, having talked to him on various occasions and having personally seen Groundspeak's model release form, I'm pretty sure that he has it covered.

 

Oh, and I am a lawyer, but I am not "your" lawyer, nor am I offering or providing you with legal services in any way. Sorry... standard disclaimer....

Thanks, I was pretty sure they had probabaly looked into it, but like I said, after reading section 6, it was just a question that entered my mind. For products like the calendar from a few years ago, they would want to have the sign off. This answers my wonderings very well, so this topic can be closed whenever the mods. see fit. Thanks.

 

By your command