Forestry Commission - Personal Liability

[+Kryten]

The permission for several of my caches which are on Forestry Commission property are up for their annual renewal but a couple of clauses in the contract are of concern.

 

"You will be responsible for all damage to Commission property arising from the exercise of this permission and will make good or pay for such damage to the satisfaction of the Commission".

 

"You will indemnify the Commission against all claims arising from the grant of these facilities including claims by third parties."

 

Are these clauses standard in all Forestry Commission cache permission agreements and are people signing them and hoping for the best. I don't think my pockets are deep enough to take this risk and so with regret am considering archiving the caches concerned.

[+keehotee]

PM sent.

[+reddeeps]

I have some FC caches, that clause is not in my permission, but also mine are not reviewed annually.

[+Cache U Nutter]

The permission for several of my caches which are on Forestry Commission property are up for their annual renewal but a couple of clauses in the contract are of concern.

 

"You will be responsible for all damage to Commission property arising from the exercise of this permission and will make good or pay for such damage to the satisfaction of the Commission".

 

"You will indemnify the Commission against all claims arising from the grant of these facilities including claims by third parties."

 

Are these clauses standard in all Forestry Commission cache permission agreements and are people signing them and hoping for the best. I don't think my pockets are deep enough to take this risk and so with regret am considering archiving the caches concerned.

 

I have to say that the F.C attitude to their forestry assets stinks.

They have actively carved up vast tracts of stunningly beautiful land and planted row after row of non indigeounous trees and ruined the countryside. - Kielder forest a prime example.

The habitat of these areas have been ireversibly affected and the authorities seem to impose these arbitary rules without thought.

Near us [surrey] they have closed a forest for months for 'forestry work' and no work has taken place.

Sometimes forest fires in these areas actually improve the long tem habitat. - Not of course that I would condone deliberately starting fires !

Rant over

[+Arenalife]

My South Wales Forestry cache doesn't have that disclaimer, I'm not sure it's even a legal disclaimer under the 'fair clause' part of contract law (a bit like those shops you go in where it says they won't be liable if you have in accident in the store). I mean, how can you personally be found responsible for someone coming to harm or causing damage just because their intention was to visit your cache?

 

Either way, I'd tell them to stick it and remove the cache. wouldn't want the bother.

[+agentmancuso]

I'd tell them to stick it and remove the cache. wouldn't want the bother.

 

Or alternatively, shift the caches onto another hosting site which does not require this sort of red tape?

[+dino-irl]

I'd tell them to stick it and remove the cache. wouldn't want the bother.

 

Or alternatively, shift the caches onto another hosting site which does not require this sort of red tape?

 

That'll really impress FC and help build a solid relationship with them!

 

I think trying to negotiate with them and re-educate might be a better option

[Deceangi]

I'd tell them to stick it and remove the cache. wouldn't want the bother.

 

Or alternatively, shift the caches onto another hosting site which does not require this sort of red tape?

 

One Point for yourself and others of a similar mind set to think about. There is a high possibility that the Landowners when they agree a Placement Agreement, mean it to apply to all Geocaches, whatever the Listing Site.

 

At least one is very specific on this point. In that they restrict the total number of Geocaches, that covers all Listing Sites in the UK. So by ignoring the agreement a person could affectively cause a withdrawal of that agreement.

 

At the end of the day, we are reliant on Landowners allowing our Hobby to take place.

 

Deci

[+Happy Humphrey]

The agreement does sound rather worrying. I would also consider archiving my caches under those conditions; these are only insignificant little containers and certainly not worth the risk. It's baffling that the FC even bother with the admin of this trivia when you consider the enormous amount of stuff they litter the countryside with!

 

Although I respect the opinions of Deceangi and Dino, and support the concept of landowner permission, I'm also tempted to support the use of another listing site where you can remain anonymous and not have to agree to such clauses. Others have created their own listing sites: you could also consider not listing them on the internet at all. If the FC want to use disproportionate rules and restrictions then they have to expect people to be inclined to bypass them.

 

The agreement may have been intended to cover all cache listings, but if so this shows a lack of understanding of how things work in practice. If I create a listing site, I may simply remain unaware of any landowner agreements. And there's no overall geocaching body that can prevent my listed caches from remaining listed, whatever the FC thinks they've agreed with "Geocaching".

[+Kryten]

I've declined to accept the current FC agreement and will attempt to open discussions using an FC agreement from another region, which is based around the GAGB guidelines, and has no requirement for the cache placer to accept personal liability. I will disable the caches for the duration.

[Deceangi]

The agreement does sound rather worrying. I would also consider archiving my caches under those conditions; these are only insignificant little containers and certainly not worth the risk. It's baffling that the FC even bother with the admin of this trivia when you consider the enormous amount of stuff they litter the countryside with!

 

Although I respect the opinions of Deceangi and Dino, and support the concept of landowner permission, I'm also tempted to support the use of another listing site where you can remain anonymous and not have to agree to such clauses. Others have created their own listing sites: you could also consider not listing them on the internet at all. If the FC want to use disproportionate rules and restrictions then they have to expect people to be inclined to bypass them.

 

The agreement may have been intended to cover all cache listings, but if so this shows a lack of understanding of how things work in practice. If I create a listing site, I may simply remain unaware of any landowner agreements. And there's no overall geocaching body that can prevent my listed caches from remaining listed, whatever the FC thinks they've agreed with "Geocaching".

 

Also as the FC New Forest showed. There is nothing stopping them from uplifting that container. Provided to comply with any legal definition made in a Court of Law, that they safely store the container for collection by the owner.

 

All by-passing a Agreement does is alienate a Landowner, to the detriment of everybody whatever Listing Site they use.

 

Until there is a Legal case defining the Legal status of a Geocache Placed without Landowner Permission. We can argue to the end of time, as to the legal status of them, and so can a Landowner! But it still will not stop Landowners from uplifting geocaches placed without their permission, until a Legal Definition is made in a appropriate court of law.

 

By declining and attempting to Re-negotiate the Agreement, Kryten is taking the correct approach.

 

Deci

[+The HERB5]

There is a high possibility that the Landowners when they agree a Placement Agreement, mean it to apply to all Geocaches, whatever the Listing Site.

I thought GC claimed copyright on the word Geocache and therefore placements on other sites would NOT be Geocaches.

[+Happy Humphrey]

There is nothing stopping them from uplifting that container.

As long as they can find it...if it only appears on a leaflet passed around at a club they may never know about it. Same if it's on some local geocache listing site that they're unlikely to know about.

 

...By declining and attempting to Re-negotiate the Agreement, Kryten is taking the correct approach.

 

Deci

I don't disagree. Well done that man. It's going to be unfortunate if the FC dig their heels in though; they may end up alienating a whole group of geocachers. Let's hope they use common sense, and then the question won't arise again.

[+sTeamTraen]

I thought GC claimed copyright on the word Geocache and therefore placements on other sites would NOT be Geocaches.

Groundspeak does not own the copyright on the words "Geocache" or "Geocaching", otherwise they would appear with ™ or ® or © or something after them.

 

(Actually, Groundspeak does own some kind of trade mark protection on the word "Geocaching", but only in so far as it is used on their shop merchandise. I'm not sure of the exact details, and in any case as far as I can see, they tend to use "Geocaching.com" which is presumably their copyright implictly by virtue of owning the domain.)

[+Amberel]

Groundspeak does not own the copyright on the words "Geocache" or "Geocaching", otherwise they would appear with ™ or ® or © or something after them.

 

(Actually, Groundspeak does own some kind of trade mark protection on the word "Geocaching", but only in so far as it is used on their shop merchandise. I'm not sure of the exact details, and in any case as far as I can see, they tend to use "Geocaching.com" which is presumably their copyright implictly by virtue of owning the domain.)

These are the exact words Jeremy used on June 4th 2001:

 

Geocaching Trademark - Yes, I did file a trademark for Geocaching. My intent was to protect the name from being trademarked by some other entity, and enforced to remove the use of geocaching as the name of the game ... Therefore I am no longer pursuing the trademark, except as it related to sales of goods with the Geocaching logo designed by Grounded, Inc. You are free to use the word geocaching in any form you like. However, any creative of mine (logo, "you are the search engine" quote) is owned by Grounded, Inc. and me.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+agentmancuso]

That'll really impress FC and help build a solid relationship with them!

 

Sorry to disappoint, but I couldn't care less about impressing the FC.

 

At the end of the day, we are reliant on Landowners allowing our Hobby to take place.

 

Or on their not finding caches....

 

Sorry, but but this feudalism is well past its sell-by date. If nous, les citoyens are minded to hide and seek caches then that's exactly what we'll do, and no amount of forelock-tugging nonsense will prevent it.