Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
Bryan

Geocache Adoption Policy Update

Recommended Posts

If the reviewers archive caches that are in really bad shape and that are not being attended to, then the remnants of that cache will probably stay there for a long time. So maybe what the reviewer could do is not archive those and enable a feature to allow the next person earn a special CITO log (A new type of cache log!) for picking up the remnants of the cache and cleaning up the area. After the volunteer logs the cache to earn this award then the cache would automatically be archived. This would motivate people to clean up abandoned cache areas to earn a new kind of smiley. It's a win-win for all of us! :(

Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I found Rothstafari's response to my original question a satisfactory answer and Keystone's follow ups have given me confidence that this new policy will be good for Geocaching. An old cache that is still be actively found and which the community maintains will not be archived just because the owner has become inactive.

 

Except that it will be archived, and in fact this has happened already.

 

As has been linked to repeatedly in this thread - if someone were to happen to post an needs maintenance on a cache which is just fine, it will be archived if the owner does not respond. Even if the physical cache is fine.

 

Michael did not 'miss' any logs on the cache which was archived. Groundspeak wants all their caches to have active owners, and they will in fact archive them if the owner does not respond to emails.

 

As someone mentioned in the other thread, they feel "a cache without an active owner still needs maintenance - it needs an owner".

Share this post


Link to post

It is just too bad that cache couldn't have been treated the way a local cache is being treated. Instead of being immediately Archived, some time (four weeks) is being given for the owner to respond. If they don't, there is someone waiting to "Adopt" the cache. I trust that will happen since the cache has been around for a long time. It would be sad to lose the history associated with that particular cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I found Rothstafari's response to my original question a satisfactory answer and Keystone's follow ups have given me confidence that this new policy will be good for Geocaching. An old cache that is still be actively found and which the community maintains will not be archived just because the owner has become inactive.

 

Except that it will be archived, and in fact this has happened already.

 

As has been linked to repeatedly in this thread - if someone were to happen to post an needs maintenance on a cache which is just fine, it will be archived if the owner does not respond. Even if the physical cache is fine.

 

Michael did not 'miss' any logs on the cache which was archived. Groundspeak wants all their caches to have active owners, and they will in fact archive them if the owner does not respond to emails.

 

As someone mentioned in the other thread, they feel "a cache without an active owner still needs maintenance - it needs an owner".

 

The archival of the above referenced cache occured prior to the publication of this 'Adoption Policy Update'. Going forward, since the cache maintenance was done, I believe that the outcome would be different. This is a perfect example of an issue that we are trying to address with the policy update.

Share this post


Link to post

i.e. if you don't respond to a maintenance request or a SBA request in a set amount of time with a couple official requests then by default a reviewer can put your cache up for adoption.

...this is the procedure that they've just got rid of. If the Groundspeak representative is able to take over the cache then pass ownership to someone else, it could be construed to be inferring ownership by Groundspeak.

 

Well, I don't think I'm going to change the world here so I'll let this go with a couple final thoughts.

 

1. Is it REALLY about legality? Who the heck are we kidding? If this is true GS lawyers must be high school students who are thinking about being lawyers.

 

Imagine if something were to tragically go wrong with a cache. GS is without a doubt a vehicle in promoting that cache and would CERTAINLY be included in any lawsuits. And the money thing could lead to even bigger trouble because they profit from mananing cache listings.

 

2. And why does a reviewer posting a note that says "It appears that we have lost an owner for GCXXXX would someone like to become the owner? THIS IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT GS OWNS THIS CACHE, etc, etc. <insert more legal mumbo jumbo> blah blah" imply ownership? Seems pretty clear to me that GS never owned, doesn't own it now and WON"T own in the future.

 

There, the cache listing is now adopted, GS never it owned it and the cache is saved. Wa La! Pretty cool, huh?

Edited by Morning Dew

Share this post


Link to post

Speaking of geolitter. What happens in the case when a hider passes away?

I have worked with this situation more times than I would have liked (which would be zero). The caches become property of the deceased cacher's estate. Therefore I look to the family for direction. Sometimes the family maintains the caches themselves, sometimes they respond with direct adoption instructions, sometimes they name a local cacher to make the adoption decisions, and sometimes they do nothing.

 

I don't see the present policy as being in conflict with my past practice of working with the family to handle the caches in accordance with their wishes.

Thanks for all the very hard work in these regards. It must be very tough to have to start that process at that time. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post

I revise my previous statement about Groundspeak owning the Listing Info slightly. Based on the Terms of Use and other info we agree to when we list caches, the Listing belongs to Groundspeak but copywrite to the information (the IP) is retained by the submitter. This is likely to ensure that Groundspeak has a defence to claims against people claiming copywrite infringement for IP misappropriated by cachers and posted on the site. It's a fine distinction - and maybe a valid reason why GS does not want to reassign the IP (Intellectual Property) contained in a listing.

 

I still stand by my statements that the cache container has been released into the public domain and no longer belongs to me, you or Groundspeak.

 

The handling of troubled/missing caches varies a fair bit from what I can see and there is no real policy across regions or areas.

 

I live in British Columbia where we only have one active reviewer (mtn-man) who also covers several US states. We keep mtn-man very busy dealing with new listings - frankly I don't see when he has time to find caches himself - and he does a great job, but it is impractical for him to keep up with activities that clean up the playing field.

 

In BC I have noticed that many cache listings sit owner disabled/not even disabled but with obviously AWOL caches and owners for periods sometimes in excess of a year. This cache http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ad-f74040e5e86b

has been gone since July 07 for example and lives in or near my 20 nearest. Archive notes in BC often go ignored by both reviewers and cache owners.

 

In Washington State where I also often cache there are multiple active reviewers and from what I have noticed there seems to be a somewhat more aggressive stance toward cache archiving/pushing maintenance by the reviewers.

 

While I don't totally agree with the new adoption policy, I do prefer clear policy (which at least this is). Things work best when we can all play the game by the same rules.

Share this post


Link to post

This looks to be a very minor change.

 

Old way:

  1. Cache at location X is in trouble. Owner is MIA.
  2. Someone requests to adopt cache.
  3. After a suitable time period, ownership might be transfered.
  4. If it is, new owner now has a cache at location X.

New way:

  1. Cache at location X is in trouble. Owner is MIA.
  2. Someone posts an SBA to the cache.
  3. After a suitable time period, cache listing might be archived.
  4. If it is, a new cache is put out.
  5. New owner now has a cache at location X.

Having a hard time seeing what the fuss is about. :)

 

Unfortunately the "new way" isn't quite so easy in areas were strict policies regarding new cache placements have been adopted by land managers. If caches are archived in these areas it may be difficult (at best) for the new owner to get the cache relisted after the archiving. So a SBA log could mean the permanent loss of a viable cache just due to the inactivity of an absentee owner. I am a little less worried about the change if local reviewers will have some flexibility, but we'll see how it goes.

 

I would like to note that I appreciate the hard work of the GS staff and volunteer reviewers.

Share this post


Link to post
... 2. And why does a reviewer posting a note that says "It appears that we have lost an owner for GCXXXX would someone like to become the owner? THIS IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT GS OWNS THIS CACHE, etc, etc. <insert more legal mumbo jumbo> blah blah" imply ownership? Seems pretty clear to me that GS never owned, doesn't own it now and WON"T own in the future.

 

There, the cache listing is now adopted, GS never it owned it and the cache is saved. Wa La! Pretty cool, huh?

How could they adopt out the cache which, in effect, gives it a new owner, without ever being the owner or having consent from the owner?

 

If you don't have ownership of an object, you can't transfer ownership from one person to another without the consent of the owner.

Share this post


Link to post

The same way the police and others auction off found/abandoned property. I found a 100 dollar bill in a store parking lot a while back. The store held it for thirty days, the 'gave' it to me - how could they do that when there was "no consent from the owner"?

Edited by The Jester

Share this post


Link to post

The same way the police and others auction off found/abandoned property. I found a 100 dollar bill in a store parking lot a while back. The store held it for thirty days, the 'gave' it to me - how could they do that when there was "no consent from the owner"?

They should have archived the bill and left it in the parking lot...

:(:rolleyes::)

 

Ok, comment aside...I guess I just took it for granted that owners should be the ones doing this...sure, it is nice to keep the olders caches active...

Share this post


Link to post
The same way the police and others auction off found/abandoned property. I found a 100 dollar bill in a store parking lot a while back. The store held it for thirty days, the 'gave' it to me - how could they do that when there was "no consent from the owner"?
The problem is, we take great strides to stress that geocaches are not abandoned property.

 

Let's imagine a cache placed with permission on private property. The property owner gave specific permission for a specific geocacher to place an object that the geocacher owns on the property. If there is a problem related to that object, the land owner knows exactly who to contact; the owner of the object. Whether or not the object is listed on GC.com, the object still belongs to the person who placed it. This ownership is not dependant on whether the object is listed on GC.com.

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately the "new way" isn't quite so easy in areas were strict policies regarding new cache placements have been adopted by land managers. If caches are archived in these areas it may be difficult (at best) for the new owner to get the cache relisted after the archiving. So a SBA log could mean the permanent loss of a viable cache just due to the inactivity of an absentee owner. I am a little less worried about the change if local reviewers will have some flexibility, but we'll see how it goes.

 

I would like to note that I appreciate the hard work of the GS staff and volunteer reviewers.

Your argument is that the old way should be kept around, because it's a good way to snooker land mangers? <_<

 

Permits are issued to individuals, not caches. When an adoption occurs, that old permit is no longer valid anyway. The new owner needs to get a new permit, with current contact information on it.

Share this post


Link to post

2. And why does a reviewer posting a note that says "It appears that we have lost an owner for GCXXXX would someone like to become the owner? THIS IN NO WAY IMPLIES THAT GS OWNS THIS CACHE, etc, etc. <insert more legal mumbo jumbo> blah blah" imply ownership? Seems pretty clear to me that GS never owned, doesn't own it now and WON"T own in the future.

 

There, the cache listing is now adopted, GS never it owned it and the cache is saved. Wa La! Pretty cool, huh?

The reviewers were told *years* ago not to become actively involved in encouraging adoptions. This month's policy change brings one last thing -- involuntary adoptions -- in line with the general principles on caches and cache listings that have been in place for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so there are +/-'s to the revised policy. Moving on...

 

Let's take a common situation I have encountered. Someone gets excited about caching, runs out and hides a couple caches. Somehow they manage to place a decent cache that does not get muggled immediately, or leak like a sieve.

 

They find a couple caches too, but it's just not for them. They stop hunting caches, and stop reading those boring "TNLNSL" logs on their hides. Soon they have not logged on for a year and they don't respond to emails/posts.

 

So now we have an orphened but decent cache. We no longer adopt orphans out but we "might" informally foster them.

 

1. Does the cache really really need an owner? (I know lots of now ownerless caches)

 

2. Is the lack of an owner - alone - fatal to the cache?

 

3. If no one has any reason to look at the cache ownership situation, do we not just let them live forever or die naturally?

 

4. Can we shoot the orphans and relist the orphan if they are still being visited and seem ok?

 

5. Can we shoot the orphan if an active cacher fixed up/replaced the cache and that active cacher wants to relist it? (this was suggested here with different phrasology)

 

6. If the cache belongs to the "owner/hider" and the owner/hider is AWOL is it not just abandoned property now that we can CITO? replace? reuse? relist?

 

And to further get you thinking...

 

7. If an owner archives his own cache but leaves it in place (clearly abandons it with no further purpose for being there) logic tells me that I can relist the cache under my name. (Reviewers have long been prohibited from unarchiving caches to facilitate forced adoptions anyway)

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so there are +/-'s to the revised policy. Moving on...

 

Let's take a common situation I have encountered. Someone gets excited about caching, runs out and hides a couple caches. Somehow they manage to place a decent cache that does not get muggled immediately, or leak like a sieve.

 

They find a couple caches too, but it's just not for them. They stop hunting caches, and stop reading those boring "TNLNSL" logs on their hides. Soon they have not logged on for a year and they don't respond to emails/posts.

 

So now we have an orphened but decent cache. We no longer adopt orphans out but we "might" informally foster them.

 

1. Does the cache really really need an owner? (I know lots of now ownerless caches)

It depends. Land manager may require the cache owner to have a permit. Other issues my necessitate identifying an owner responsible for the physical cache.

2. Is the lack of an owner - alone - fatal to the cache?

Rothstafari answered this in response to my question above: If the community takes care of maintenance problems and post that in logs the reviewer won't archive the cache - unless there is an issue as mentioned in 1 above.

3. If no one has any reason to look at the cache ownership situation, do we not just let them live forever or die naturally?

This seems to be the stated policy.

4. Can we shoot the orphans and relist the orphan if they are still being visited and seem ok?

The new policy seem to say if someone is taking care of the cache it won't be archived.

5. Can we shoot the orphan if an active cacher fixed up/replaced the cache and that active cacher wants to relist it? (this was suggested here with different phrasology)

I supposed if you could show that you are the one taking care of the cache you could ask the reviewer to archive it so you could relist it under your name.

6. If the cache belongs to the "owner/hider" and the owner/hider is AWOL is it not just abandoned property now that we can CITO? replace? reuse? relist?

If the cache has been archived because no one is maintaining it, you can do what ever you want. If you go out to the site and find a perfectly good ammo can you can decide for yourself if it is abandoned and free for the taking or if this is still someone's property. Groundspeak doesn't get involved.

And to further get you thinking...

 

7. If an owner archives his own cache but leaves it in place (clearly abandons it with no further purpose for being there) logic tells me that I can relist the cache under my name. (Reviewers have long been prohibited from unarchiving caches to facilitate forced adoptions anyway)

ditto 6

Share this post


Link to post
The same way the police and others auction off found/abandoned property. I found a 100 dollar bill in a store parking lot a while back. The store held it for thirty days, the 'gave' it to me - how could they do that when there was "no consent from the owner"?
The problem is, we take great strides to stress that geocaches are not abandoned property.

 

Let's imagine a cache placed with permission on private property. The property owner gave specific permission for a specific geocacher to place an object that the geocacher owns on the property. If there is a problem related to that object, the land owner knows exactly who to contact; the owner of the object. Whether or not the object is listed on GC.com, the object still belongs to the person who placed it. This ownership is not dependant on whether the object is listed on GC.com.

I never said caches are abondoned property, I said they can be treated the same way abandoned property is treated. When no owner is found title to property can be transfered.

 

In your example, what if the owner is non-responsive, a problem occurs, the property owner has no way to contact the owner and so assumes the cache is abondoned, and tossed it. By your logic, he can't do that because a cache is not abandoned property and can't be touched without owner permission. But what if the property owner likes having a cache there, he enjoys meeting the cachers hunting for it. If a problem occurs and he can't find the owner, and not knowing how to deal with a cache himself, he asks the next finder if he would take over the cache and keep it going. By your logic, again, he can't do that. BUT it was abandoned on HIS property so he CAN deal with it as he likes.

Where am I going with this? Groundspeak is the property owner, they own the website. They have agreed to let us on their property to list (hide in the example) our caches. If we, the cache owners, abandon our listings, they can deal with them as they like. They've chosen to toss them all, but they could choose to give them to someone else. And if someone (the original owner) comes back later to squak about 'losing' their cache, their reply should be "you left it here, we couldn't get a hold of you, so instead of tossing it, we let someone else take care of it."

Share this post


Link to post
The same way the police and others auction off found/abandoned property. I found a 100 dollar bill in a store parking lot a while back. The store held it for thirty days, the 'gave' it to me - how could they do that when there was "no consent from the owner"?
The problem is, we take great strides to stress that geocaches are not abandoned property.

 

Let's imagine a cache placed with permission on private property. The property owner gave specific permission for a specific geocacher to place an object that the geocacher owns on the property. If there is a problem related to that object, the land owner knows exactly who to contact; the owner of the object. Whether or not the object is listed on GC.com, the object still belongs to the person who placed it. This ownership is not dependant on whether the object is listed on GC.com.

You can apply the same thing to "Property Managers"

Share this post


Link to post

In order to be consistent with Groundspeak's geocache ownership policy*, Groundspeak will no longer be supporting non-consensual geocache adoptions. All geocache adoptions must be handled using the adoption tool found here: Adopt a Listing

 

*Individual geocaches are owned by the person(s) who physically placed the geocache and/or submitted the geocache listing to geocaching.com.

 

The way this sounds is that the physical geocache belongs to the person who posted the listing on geocaching.com. The listing is still geocaching.com property, if you will.

 

If the geocache container is completely gone and the owner has not even logged in in over two years can a third party replace the container and adopt the LISTING?

Share this post


Link to post

The way this sounds is that the physical geocache belongs to the person who posted the listing on geocaching.com. The listing is still geocaching.com property, if you will.

 

If the geocache container is completely gone and the owner has not even logged in in over two years can a third party replace the container and adopt the LISTING?

 

Except that generally once the container is gone, generally the reviewers consider there is nothing to adopt - so would not adopt listings. Therefore, they were adopting the containers (in thier minds?) and that is what has changed.

 

I think the bigger underlying issue is that the increasing number of forced adoptions - and the process where Reviewers had to get consent from the Lilypad on a case by case basis - was taking too much valuable time and causing hard feelings when cachers came back from the dead and found thier listings gone/numbers reduced. Easy way out was to stop doing forced adoptions. (this is just speculation based on hints I've read and some of my own reading between the lines).

 

It is not going to change as some key reviewers support the new policy as well - and there is a practical workaround of getting the old listing archived and relisting the cache. That procedure raises problems of having to get new land manager permissions etc, but it can work and I have now done it successfully once.

Share this post


Link to post

It would be nice if there was something like a "sponsor" option, in which the sponsor would not have any control of changing the cache page, but be able to post "maintenence completed" notes and have access to changing the waypoints a small amount if it was needed.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool

Share this post


Link to post

There is a local cacher in my area who has been quite prolific over the years in placing hides. Now he is MIA and hasn't logged on or responded to emails in months - yet the Groundspeak reviewers I have contacted seem to know him and say that this is normal for him and he will eventually return. Fine.

 

I have fixed several of his caches and have been discussing replacing a missing final cache with other cachers in my area. It is a puzzle solving cache - so not having a final means that the preliminary caches to reach it are now worthless and all of his hard work (genius!) to set up this series is pointless. We need MORE smart caches around here to combat reliance on skirt-lifters to gain a smiley.

 

Now, what I want to suggest is allowing the reviewers the opportunity to assign volunteer "caretakers" to a cache when the owner vanishes (subject to reviewer discretion). The caretaker would be allowed to address maintenance issues and get flags removed - but would not be the owner. Another designation could be "samaritan" where the current repairer is given temporary credit - until the next repairer is needed.

 

I CITO'd out one incredible cache series this week. There don't have to be others!

 

Created By: XXXXX

Caretaker: ZZZZZ or SAMARITAN: ZZZZZ (date)

Share this post


Link to post

The cache belongs to the cache owner. Geocaching.com doesn't have the authority to assign a caretaker to someone else's property. This is a listing service. All they can do is de-list it.

Edited by Prime Suspect

Share this post


Link to post

That is correct - however, once again, GS has decided to err on the side of legality, rather on the side of common sense. If an owner isn't an active cacher anymore, and isn't able to be contacted, or hasn't signed into the website for an excessive amount of time, the reviewers should have the ability/right to allow people who have adopted a cache to assume ownership. The circumstances would need to be relatively closely defined (which we know GS.com doesn't like to do - they'd rather have guidelines which even they themselves don't have to follow - referencing the "just because we did it in the past doesn't mean that we will do it now, or just because it was ok in the past doesn't mean it is ok now" policy they always have) rules for doing this in such a way that it protected the cache ownership of the original owner, but if they have obviously chosen not to maintain the cache, and the community would like to keep a cache active, that the option should be there.

 

GS.com has always been in favor of maintaining history...look at the lack of ability to delete posts, look at the fact that archived caches remain on the site (just invisible to searches...), etc. This definitely doesn't mesh with their policy of wanting to archive caches just because someone else is maintaining it when the owner is MIA.

 

But then again - their policies are rarely written to benefit the game... sometimes, but rarely. See the first line of my sig file.

Share this post


Link to post

That is correct - however, once again, GS has decided to err on the side of legality, rather on the side of common sense. If an owner isn't an active cacher anymore, and isn't able to be contacted, or hasn't signed into the website for an excessive amount of time, the reviewers should have the ability/right to allow people who have adopted a cache to assume ownership. The circumstances would need to be relatively closely defined (which we know GS.com doesn't like to do - they'd rather have guidelines which even they themselves don't have to follow - referencing the "just because we did it in the past doesn't mean that we will do it now, or just because it was ok in the past doesn't mean it is ok now" policy they always have) rules for doing this in such a way that it protected the cache ownership of the original owner, but if they have obviously chosen not to maintain the cache, and the community would like to keep a cache active, that the option should be there.

 

GS.com has always been in favor of maintaining history...look at the lack of ability to delete posts, look at the fact that archived caches remain on the site (just invisible to searches...), etc. This definitely doesn't mesh with their policy of wanting to archive caches just because someone else is maintaining it when the owner is MIA.

 

But then again - their policies are rarely written to benefit the game... sometimes, but rarely. See the first line of my sig file.

The policies of Groundspeak in this area are entirely reasonable. Please note at the beginning of this thread where I brought up the issue of a cache where the owner has stopped caching and is no longer maintaining the cache but cachers from the community have voluntarily stepped in to maintain the cache. In Post #5 Bryan replied that in general such a cache would not be archive and that local reviewers would be able to remove a needs maintenance attribute if someone from the community reports that cache has been maintained.

 

There is no need for Groundspeak to reassign a cache listing, even temporarily, from the cache owner for this to take place. The cache is owned by one person and it is that person's responsibility to maintain the cache and the cache page. But the community will not have to forfeit looking for a cache that remains viable despite the lack of an active owner. Caches are only archived if their is a maintenance issue which is not being addressed or if there is a guidelines issue - generally a land owner or land manager that request the cache be archived.

Share this post


Link to post

To demonstrate this: imagine if I decide to take over a listing from a lapsed cache owner. All I'll have to do now is request that the cache is archived. Once this is done I just copy and paste the original text (plus a link to the archived version so that past logs can be accessed), give the cache the same name as before, and submit it as a new cache. Forced adoption complete. <_< I never even had to visit the cache site! That's because Groundspeak have no control over physical caches.

Except that you cannot guarantee that the new listing will be approved. Keeping the existing listing active, through adoption or community maintenance, would be preferred over submitting a new listing.

Share this post


Link to post
That is correct - however, once again, GS has decided to err on the side of legality, rather on the side of common sense. If an owner isn't an active cacher anymore, and isn't able to be contacted, or hasn't signed into the website for an excessive amount of time, the reviewers should have the ability/right to allow people who have adopted a cache to assume ownership.

 

Common sense tells me that the cache is not Groundspeak's to give away.

Share this post


Link to post

Not trying to stir the pot here or anything...just something that's been in the back of my mind for awhile. Let's say there's a cache hidden in some random public park somewhere. Regardless of whether the cache placer is active or not...from a legal standpoint, does that cache that's essentially abandoned in that public park actually belong to anybody? Is possession really nine tenths of the law? Any lawyers out there?

Edited by Yossarian

Share this post


Link to post
That is correct - however, once again, GS has decided to err on the side of legality, rather on the side of common sense. If an owner isn't an active cacher anymore, and isn't able to be contacted, or hasn't signed into the website for an excessive amount of time, the reviewers should have the ability/right to allow people who have adopted a cache to assume ownership.

 

Common sense tells me that the cache is not Groundspeak's to give away.

 

Last I checked, no one from Groundspeak is coming out, picking up the cache, and handing it to anyone. It is the listing which is being transferred. And last I checked, Groundspeak feels they own the listings once you put them on their site.

 

Problem solved.

Share this post


Link to post
That is correct - however, once again, GS has decided to err on the side of legality, rather on the side of common sense. If an owner isn't an active cacher anymore, and isn't able to be contacted, or hasn't signed into the website for an excessive amount of time, the reviewers should have the ability/right to allow people who have adopted a cache to assume ownership.

 

Common sense tells me that the cache is not Groundspeak's to give away.

 

Last I checked, no one from Groundspeak is coming out, picking up the cache, and handing it to anyone. It is the listing which is being transferred. And last I checked, Groundspeak feels they own the listings once you put them on their site.

 

Problem solved.

From the TOS:

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.
(bolding mine)

Share this post


Link to post

Which completely contradicts what you said in the other thread about deleting usernames. Either we gave them to them and they can do what they want with them, or they are our property and we can do what we want with them. You can't have it both ways.

 

Either we own the listing, and can do what we want with it (including deletion), or they own it, and can do whatever they want with it. You can't have it be my property that I have control over but they have the right to do whatever they want with it regardless of my wishes.

Share this post


Link to post
That is correct - however, once again, GS has decided to err on the side of legality, rather on the side of common sense. If an owner isn't an active cacher anymore, and isn't able to be contacted, or hasn't signed into the website for an excessive amount of time, the reviewers should have the ability/right to allow people who have adopted a cache to assume ownership.

 

Common sense tells me that the cache is not Groundspeak's to give away.

 

Last I checked, no one from Groundspeak is coming out, picking up the cache, and handing it to anyone. It is the listing which is being transferred. And last I checked, Groundspeak feels they own the listings once you put them on their site.

 

Problem solved.

If you adopted a cache, would you feel that it would be OK for you to remove it at your whim? If so, the ownership of the actual cache has been transferred, not just that of the listing.

Share this post


Link to post

Which completely contradicts what you said in the other thread about deleting usernames. Either we gave them to them and they can do what they want with them, or they are our property and we can do what we want with them. You can't have it both ways.

 

Either we own the listing, and can do what we want with it (including deletion), or they own it, and can do whatever they want with it. You can't have it be my property that I have control over but they have the right to do whatever they want with it regardless of my wishes.

Nope, not a contridiction - we retain the ownership, but have granted GC license to use said work. That license gives them the right to do many things with the work, but does not give them the right to give away the ownership.

 

The whole paragraph (portions used in both threads) from the TOS:

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×
×
  • Create New...