Movie locations - "commercial venture"

[+Oofy]

Just tried publishing a cache overlooking an important location for a certain British Oscar-winning movie. Not trying to promote the movie but, having seen many movie location caches, and done a few, it seemed a good idea. Not wanting to promote the movie, just point out something that will be of interest to people.

 

But I've been told by the reviewer it can't be published with the title of the movie in there AT ALL as "this is a current commercial venture". Yet surely all movie references are "current commercial ventures" as they're available on DVD.

 

Trying to work out how to get round it. If I avoid all mentions of the film, is there really any point in having the cache? If anybody has had a similar experience, I'd welcome advice.

 

Finding it a bit odd as movie locations seem to be a recurrent theme with caches.

[+GeoReapers]

How about making an oblique reference to the film? Geocaching.com just published on their blog a "cache of the week" about a Monty Python cache. Maybe take a look at that and see what they are doing.

[+Oofy]

Thanks. I'd forgotten but I'd already seen it. That's why I'm so puzzled, though admittedly it is an older cache and might be allowed under grandfather rules (is that what they're called?). But geocaching.com still highlighted it as their "cache of the week".

 

It mentions the name of the film in the cache title and several times in the description. I'm not doing anything markedly different to that which is what I find so baffling.

 

Referring to the film obliquely,given that it's the UK's most successful ever independent movie, would surely just seem weird. I can leave the title out if I have to but I just find it a bit odd. In fact, I'm beginning to understand why there are so many dull caches around if you get this sort of knock down when you try to do anything more interesting.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Just tried publishing a cache overlooking an important location for a certain British Oscar-winning movie. Not trying to promote the movie but, having seen many movie location caches, and done a few, it seemed a good idea. Not wanting to promote the movie, just point out something that will be of interest to people.

 

But I've been told by the reviewer it can't be published with the title of the movie in there AT ALL as "this is a current commercial venture". Yet surely all movie references are "current commercial ventures" as they're available on DVD.

 

Trying to work out how to get round it. If I avoid all mentions of the film, is there really any point in having the cache? If anybody has had a similar experience, I'd welcome advice.

 

Finding it a bit odd as movie locations seem to be a recurrent theme with caches.

 

Please don't interpret this beyond a suggestion as how you might be able to include the info but instead of including the information about the current movie in the listing, you can create a waymark for the "Movie Location" and then cross-reference that in your listing with something like "This location was recently used in an upcoming motion picture" with a link to the waymark.

 

While I know many people do not enjoy that other game, it is a way that people can reference such content easily if they are interested.

 

BQ

[+currykev]

What's the film? (movie)

[+Mark+Karen]

You could just imagine a PR company thinking it's a great idea to put caches out to promote films. In the scheme of things geocaching would get them negligible extra sales.

[+keehotee]

You could just imagine a PR company thinking it's a great idea to put caches out to promote films. In the scheme of things geocaching would get them negligible extra sales.

 

Hmmmm - care for a slice of Project Ape anyone?

[+MartyBartfast]

You could just imagine a PR company thinking it's a great idea to put caches out to promote films. In the scheme of things geocaching would get them negligible extra sales.

 

Well that's exactly what they did for the "Project APE" caches.

 

Anyway I'd pretty much stayed out of the pub naming discussion as I could understand the Groundpeak stance, however this is just ridiculous.

[+Oofy]

The film's The King's Speech and the building the one used as Logue's consulting rooms and, bizarrely, also for the Duke and Duchess's Piccadilly home. That's why I think it odd not to mention the name. But if the reviewer says I must not, I guess I must not.

 

I missed the pub naming discussions. Worth catching up on?

 

[incidentally, nothing I do seems to get me email alerts to let me know when there have been replies to my posts. I'm sure it must be there somewhere but I can't find it. Oddly enough, I utter that phrase frequently when caching! Presumably others know.]

[+drdick&vick]

Yet more interpretation of a guidline that seems sensless.

Don't mention Charity, Don't mention Pubs, Don't mention Films what's next.

Just put the cache out and leave the page blank.

 

These are my own personal views

Edited March 2, 2011 by DrDick&Vick

[+currykev]

Just put the cache out and leave the page blank

 

That'll go nicely with recent logs we now receive on some phone apps.

[Deceangi]

Sorry but the film has just won how many Oscars? One of the biggest move industry awards in the world! It's not like the film is 3-4-5 years old, so passing into PoP Culture, unlike Harry Potter which gave us "muggles".

 

The cache page was not mentioning the real locations behind the actual story the Film is based on, but Film locations representing them. A Film which has just heavily been in the news

 

BBC News 28/2/20011 and that's just one in the last 7 days.

 

The CO is quite welcome to take the decision to Appeals.

 

Deci

Edited March 2, 2011 by Deceangi

[+janandsteve]

[incidentally, nothing I do seems to get me email alerts to let me know when there have been replies to my posts. I'm sure it must be there somewhere but I can't find it. Oddly enough, I utter that phrase frequently when caching! Presumably others know.]

 

Top right of this screen. Under your user name. Drop down box - my settings. On the new page that comes up - left column, down to notification options, tick 'Watch every topic I reply to' and select immediate notification. Tick some of the other boxes at the bottom of page if they apply to what you want.

Hope this helps.

Steve

[+Von-Horst]

Trying to work out how to get round it. If I avoid all mentions of the film, is there really any point in having the cache?

 

Why not call the cache "The King's Therapist", "Bertie's Oscar", "Colin's Speech" or something similar so that it is clear what you are refering to without mentioning it. The APE caches didn't/don't have the name of the movie in the title, after all.

 

In the description all you need to mention is that the location was used in a recent movie for exterior shots to represent the premises of the speech therapist who helped the King of England to cope with his stutter (or whatever it was used for in the film). There's no need to actually mention the name of the film.

 

Just my 2d worth

 

Mike

[+Oofy]

Thanks for all your help. I'll revise it along some of those guidelines though I'm mystified by a note telling me the reviewer has sent it to appeal because I wouldn't work with him on it when all I wanted to know was HOW I should change it.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Sorry but the film has just won how many Oscars? One of the biggest move industry awards in the world! It's not like the film is 3-4-5 years old, so passing into PoP Culture, unlike Harry Potter which gave us "muggles".

 

The cache page was not mentioning the real locations behind the actual story the Film is based on, but Film locations representing them. A Film which has just heavily been in the news

 

BBC News 28/2/20011 and that's just one in the last 7 days.

 

The CO is quite welcome to take the decision to Appeals.

 

Deci

I'm afraid I don't understand this post at all. Is the listing being held back because it's about a film, or would it have been allowed if it mentioned film locations (or something)? What's the number of mentions got to do with it? If a local cacher knows a location that was made famous in some way due to a film, it would seem a fair idea for a cache placement. I did the same thing myself a few years ago with an "Isle of Man Film" series, but had no problem with guidelines.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Happy Humphrey

[+Mad H@ter]

It's not like the film is 3-4-5 years old, so passing into PoP Culture, unlike Harry Potter which gave us "muggles".

So how old doe a film (or other comercial venture) need to be to no longer be classed as "commercial" by Groundspeak?

 

IMHO this is just getting totaly stupid, we can't even get agreement with our own reviewers as can be seen in the similar recent pubs posting .

[+Lime Candy]

This does seem to be needlessly splitting hairs. Not sure though that the hair can actually be split.

 

As has already been pointed out, there are already lots of film-themed caches, either at film-related locations or simply named after films. And there are even more named after or based around other “current commercial ventures” – such as TV programmes, cartoons, characters on TV/films/in books, song titles, beers, etc. etc. etc.

 

Not sure if Deci is saying "appeal and it will be allowed", or "appeal if you like, but it still won't be allowed" ???

[+Oofy]

I've revised it with no mention of the title of the film. I'll see if that sits better with the reviewer.

 

I missed all the discussion about pubs in listings. Just catching up now.

 

Wow!

[+Mark+Karen]

As long as it's someone who knows a film location and puts a cache there and not a PR company trying to do promotion I don't see a problem!

[+riviouveur]

The final decision on all publication issues is with Groundspeak. The reviewers' job is to publish caches which are obviously compliant with the guidelines; for those that don't appear to be compliant, the cache owner can be asked to make changes, or can be told to contact Groundspeak directly. Formally, a reviewer never "refuses" a cache; they either publish it, or indicate that they personally cannot publish it ("but maybe Groundspeak can; please contact the appeals address").

 

Of course, some caches are more salvageable than others. The exact amount of time which a reviewer will spend discussing the changes which might make a cache publishable depends on several factors. For example, if the entire purpose of a cache is to bring the seeker to the location of a movie, and the movie is sufficiently current to count as "potentially commercial" (see next paragraph), then the reviewer might decide, based on extensive experience, that it is unlikely that the cache description can be changed sufficiently to make it compatible with the guidelines. In such a case, suggesting that the cache owner appeal directly to Groundspeak is probably the quickest way to get a decision for everybody concerned.

 

As to the exact point at which a film crosses from "current promotion" to "pop culture": as with many caching guidelines, there is no hard and fast rule, because real life is, fortunately, more complex than can be expressed in the cache listing guidelines. Generally, a film which is currently in cinemas, or whose merchandise is still widely on sale, would be considered commercial. For example, although there are some Disney-themed caches which have been published by special permission from Groundspeak, the reviewers would probably not consider an image of Mickey Mouse to be "pop culture", despite his age, because Mickey merchandise is actively promoted in many retail locations.

 

While it's true that most films are available on DVD, Groundspeak has decided that that does not make all films commercial (but a cache which referred to the DVD product, rather than the movie itself, would probably not be published). Similarly, there are hundreds of caches devoted to people's favourite bands, many of whom have albums which are still available. You can talk about the band in a cache; you can refer to their classic 1972 album "Chocolate Meringue Narthex III"; you can even quote from a song (one verse and chorus maximum, please). But you can't talk about the brand new digital remastered edition which brings the sound to life like never before. Nor can you talk about their latest release. Give it a couple of years. (Note: I didn't say that all albums can be mentioned exactly 24 months after their release.)

 

The "pop culture" versus "commercial" guideline in an example of how, like trying to determine the length of the coastline, the more you zoom in, the more complexity you find. Hence why there will never be a definitive answer.

 

(Oh, and I realise that there are probably dozens of published caches out there which do not conform to some or all of what I've said above. Please don't list them here. Instead, get a magnifying class and examine your 1440x900 resolution LCD monitor. Every single pixel corresponds to a currently published cache. Come back when you've checked that every pixel is perfect.)

[+Happy Humphrey]

Good attempt at an explanation. Obviously, I don't know what was in the cache description in question, but it doesn't sound like it was a deliberate attempt to promote the film "King's Speech". If the cache basically says "this is a location used in the film, and therefore a place that might be of interest", then whether the film is new or old doesn't matter. It's a reasonable idea for a cache listing.

 

Where you draw the line between that and an attempt to "sell" the film in some way is not easy to define.

 

But a reviewer will know it if he sees it and that's all you need; just like the listing that mentions a pub in a helpful way as opposed to trying to get you to boost their profits.

 

Perhaps if I saw the original listing I'd agree that it's an attempt to promote the film. But judging from the cache owner's other listing (which mentions pubs!), I doubt that it's anything more than giving a point of interest to the cache.

[+Oofy]

Thank you, riviouveur, for that long answer which does, I think, make things much clearer, in my mind at least.

[+MartyBartfast]

Sorry but the film has just won how many Oscars? One of the biggest move industry awards in the world! It's not like the film is 3-4-5 years old, so passing into PoP Culture, unlike Harry Potter which gave us "muggles".

 

Deci

 

This suggests that it would be OK to publish a cache mentioning Harry Potter because it's been around for more than 5 years (10 IIRC), but Harry Potter is one of the biggest commercial successes of all time in any sphere, and it's also current 'cos part 1 of the last film came out last year, and part 2 will be out this year.

 

There's a very good series of caches down my way which all carry a book title in their name, would these fall foul of the new ruling? and if so how old does a book or film have to be for it to be cosidered not commercial in nature?

[+Lime Candy]

Thanks Riviouveur for a good explanation. I particularly agree with this:

 

the more you zoom in, the more complexity you find.

 

I still don't see why Oofy's cache has been disallowed, yet those themed on Doctor Who, Thomas the Tank Engine, Star Wars, The Simpsons etc. are allowed. But that's probably me being a bit thick.

 

Oofy, if your cache does get allowed, please publish its GC number here so we can have a read!

[+Malpas Wanderer]

How can "chirp" caches be published which relate to a supplier of geocaching related items and have potential to boost sales for that company be freely published but a reference to something other than geocaching and probably not at the location of the actual site of theatres where the commodity would be consumed be refused?

 

Publish it as a puzzle, use geocheck, and put any further information in the geocheck confirmation.

[+riviouveur]

How can "chirp" caches be published which relate to a supplier of geocaching related items and have potential to boost sales for that company be freely published

Because Groundspeak made a specific exception for the Chirp™. It is quite limited in its scope; for example, you can't copy and paste from the Chirp's marketing blurb, include an extensive list of GPSr model numbers with which it works, etc.

 

As far as I know, no money changed hands in that case, but Groundspeak presumably saw an interest in a limited degree of flexibility on the commercial guideline, based on Garmin's importance to the game. In the case of the APE caches, which were explicitly about promoting a new movie, the cache pages were unashamedly commercial, with their own cache type logo - which is immensely "collectable" even today, with people making "pilgrimages" to find the two remaining APE caches. I'm reasonably sure that money did change hands in that case. And if the makers of a movie or other product came to Groundspeak tomorrow with a promotional idea, I'm fairly sure that they would be allowed to make commercial use of the cache pages. The key is that Groundspeak likes to have control over what its pages are being used to advertise. That doesn't seem an unreasonable condition for a private company to impose on the users of its Web site.

 

Some long-time viewers of the BBC may have a model of "non-commercial" which could be summarised as "always say 'sticky-back plastic' and 'washing-up liquid container', never say 'Fablon' or 'Fairy Liquid bottle'". That is not the best model for the commercial guideline. A better model can be obtained by considering what would happen if you stood inside your local football ground and handed out flyers for a local business, without prior authorisation from the football club. You might well be asked to leave, but if the club chairman liked your cheeky demeanour (or saw an opportunity for some collaborative marketing), he might just give you special permission.

Edited March 2, 2011 by riviouveur

[+Malpas Wanderer]

How can "chirp" caches be published which relate to a supplier of geocaching related items and have potential to boost sales for that company be freely published

Because Groundspeak made a specific exception for the Chirp™. It is quite limited in its scope; for example, you can't copy and paste from the Chirp's marketing blurb, include an extensive list of GPSr model numbers with which it works, etc.

 

As far as I know, no money changed hands in that case, but Groundspeak presumably saw an interest in a limited degree of flexibility on the commercial guideline, based on Garmin's importance to the game. In the case of the APE caches, which were explicitly about promoting a new movie, the cache pages were unashamedly commercial, with their own cache type logo - which is immensely "collectable" even today, with people making "pilgrimages" to find the two remaining APE caches. I'm reasonably sure that money did change hands in that case. And if the makers of a movie or other product came to Groundspeak tomorrow with a promotional idea, I'm fairly sure that they would be allowed to make commercial use of the cache pages. The key is that Groundspeak likes to have control over what its pages are being used to advertise. That doesn't seem an unreasonable condition for a private company to impose on the users of its Web site.

 

Some long-time viewers of the BBC may have a model of "non-commercial" which could be summarised as "always say 'sticky-back plastic' and 'washing-up liquid container', never say 'Fablon' or 'Fairy Liquid bottle'". That is not the best model for the commercial guideline. A better model can be obtained by considering what would happen if you stood inside your local football ground and handed out flyers for a local business, without prior authorisation from the football club. You might well be asked to leave, but if the club chairman liked your cheeky demeanour (or saw an opportunity for some collaborative marketing), he might just give you special permission.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Well, yes; and if you hand out flyers at a football match with information about a rival club then you'll be told to leave sharpish.

 

But if you handed out flyers with information from a local about good pubs to visit for a meal before the next away match, along with where to park and how to find the ground, plus what's on in the evening; you'd probably find lots of grateful people taking the leaflets.

 

But you'll probably get thumped when they discover that you didn't mention the actual name of anywhere...which is more like what we're being asked to do!

[+Malpas Wanderer]

How can "chirp" caches be published which relate to a supplier of geocaching related items and have potential to boost sales for that company be freely published

Because Groundspeak made a specific exception for the Chirp™. It is quite limited in its scope; for example, you can't copy and paste from the Chirp's marketing blurb, include an extensive list of GPSr model numbers with which it works, etc.

 

As far as I know, no money changed hands in that case, but Groundspeak presumably saw an interest in a limited degree of flexibility on the commercial guideline, based on Garmin's importance to the game. In the case of the APE caches, which were explicitly about promoting a new movie, the cache pages were unashamedly commercial, with their own cache type logo - which is immensely "collectable" even today, with people making "pilgrimages" to find the two remaining APE caches. I'm reasonably sure that money did change hands in that case. And if the makers of a movie or other product came to Groundspeak tomorrow with a promotional idea, I'm fairly sure that they would be allowed to make commercial use of the cache pages. The key is that Groundspeak likes to have control over what its pages are being used to advertise. That doesn't seem an unreasonable condition for a private company to impose on the users of its Web site.

 

Some long-time viewers of the BBC may have a model of "non-commercial" which could be summarised as "always say 'sticky-back plastic' and 'washing-up liquid container', never say 'Fablon' or 'Fairy Liquid bottle'". That is not the best model for the commercial guideline. A better model can be obtained by considering what would happen if you stood inside your local football ground and handed out flyers for a local business, without prior authorisation from the football club. You might well be asked to leave, but if the club chairman liked your cheeky demeanour (or saw an opportunity for some collaborative marketing), he might just give you special permission.

 

Perhaps we need to test the commercial aspect to the extreme.

 

Less than a mile from my home is a house regularly used for filming.

 

Indeed it was also used for the film the OP quoted (hey I've not advertised).

 

Equally so it has been used for filming on numerous other occasions.

 

Would a cache get published for quoting an earlier film but not the latter.

[+riviouveur]

But if you handed out flyers with information from a local about good pubs to visit for a meal before the next away match, along with where to park and how to find the ground, plus what's on in the evening; you'd probably find lots of grateful people taking the leaflets.

The issue is not what the people taking the leaflets think. The football club wants that catering business to reach the large crowd of people - who have been attracted to the ground by the game which the football club lays on, on a commercial basis - by buying an advert in the match programme or around the pitch, not by piggy-backing on the presence of the crowd without paying for it. You would be out on your ear courtesy of a couple of stewards, once they'd got past the crowd of fans queueing up for the money-off vouchers.

 

Perhaps we need to test the commercial aspect to the extreme.

...

Would a cache get published for quoting an earlier film but not the latter.

Quite possibly. And this isn't testing the guideline to the extreme at all. It's a situation which the reviewers deal with daily.

 

How long was that coastline again?

[+Malpas Wanderer]

But if you handed out flyers with information from a local about good pubs to visit for a meal before the next away match, along with where to park and how to find the ground, plus what's on in the evening; you'd probably find lots of grateful people taking the leaflets.

The issue is not what the people taking the leaflets think. The football club wants that catering business to reach the large crowd of people - who have been attracted to the ground by the game which the football club lays on, on a commercial basis - by buying an advert in the match programme or around the pitch, not by piggy-backing on the presence of the crowd without paying for it. You would be out on your ear courtesy of a couple of stewards, once they'd got past the crowd of fans queueing up for the money-off vouchers.

 

Perhaps we need to test the commercial aspect to the extreme.

...

Would a cache get published for quoting an earlier film but not the latter.

Quite possibly. And this isn't testing the guideline to the extreme at all. It's a situation which the reviewers deal with daily.

 

How long was that coastline again?

 

O.K you are perhaps viewing it from a different angle from me.

 

I was more relating it to how the reviewer would handle the two scenarios.

 

It seems the line or if you must guideline is quite unclear and perhaps more dependent on the mood of the reviewer at review stage.

 

How many more circumstances are we to send for groundspeaks lawyers to paw over?

[+Pharisee]

One could always submit a listing that mentions a 'pub with no name'. Wait for it to be approved... and then edit in the pub name afterwards.

Edited March 2, 2011 by Pharisee

[+Smurf]

Sorry but the film has just won how many Oscars? One of the biggest move industry awards in the world! It's not like the film is 3-4-5 years old, so passing into PoP Culture, unlike Harry Potter which gave us "muggles".

 

The cache page was not mentioning the real locations behind the actual story the Film is based on, but Film locations representing them. A Film which has just heavily been in the news

 

BBC News 28/2/20011 and that's just one in the last 7 days.

 

The CO is quite welcome to take the decision to Appeals.

 

Deci

 

I have always been under the impression that one of the aims of geocaching was to bring people to interesting locations (no pun intended),

 

As i read the original post in this thread that was the COs intention, and try as i may i can not see how this could be reguarded as commercial.

[+currykev]

I have no intention of seeing said film. It doesn't interest me in the slightest.

If a cache was named after said film, then that would neither entice me to find the cache or go see the film. To think it might is...rather foolish.

A pub serving a great pint of Black Sheep bitter would be a different matter.

[+Unobtainium]

The problem as I see it is that reviewing caches is subjective. I'm an Engineer and I totally hate the subjective and long for objective formula, metrics and rules. Unfortunately for me life just isn't like that.

 

The Reviewers are given a difficult task and are given some acceptable boundaries that they are allowed to subjectively operate within in order to complete that task. When you get close to those boundaries, into the grey areas, you will inherently get inconsistencies. I don't like this, but I have to accept it. If you go past the boundaries that Groundspeak give to the Reviewer, then that Reviewer has no option but to refer it up the food chain.

 

The only theoretical solution is to implement a robot reviewer script that is completely objective. However this is not realistic as we would then have discussions over the 'rules' and what words should be in the black list dictionary and those that should not etc. This would be worse than where we are today where the Reviewers are given some discretion.

 

Bottom line, we want the Reviewers to have discretion, as long as they do what we would do.

[+Happy Humphrey]

But if you handed out flyers with information from a local about good pubs to visit for a meal before the next away match, along with where to park and how to find the ground, plus what's on in the evening; you'd probably find lots of grateful people taking the leaflets.

The issue is not what the people taking the leaflets think. The football club wants that catering business to reach the large crowd of people - who have been attracted to the ground by the game which the football club lays on, on a commercial basis - by buying an advert in the match programme or around the pitch, not by piggy-backing on the presence of the crowd without paying for it. You would be out on your ear courtesy of a couple of stewards, once they'd got past the crowd of fans queueing up for the money-off vouchers.

I know it's an academic argument, but I disagree. The leaflets are for the AWAY match, not the current one. So the football club will be happy that their fans are getting extra help (no money-off vouchers, just helpful info). We often see this sort of info getting passed around football forums and websites without any problem at all. In fact, you'll often find it in a football programme (perhaps under a title like..."Away we go...to Stockport"), even though it might discourage fans from using the official facilities in favour of a pub near the ground.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that the business Geocaching.com are in is geocaching, and as long as you're not trying to advertise a rival geocaching business then, in principle, there's no problem. In fact, it helps gc.com if people put useful local information on a cache page, because it adds value to the content. Even if it also indirectly helps some unrelated business such as a pub or cinema a little bit.

 

What we want to avoid is caches that have no point except to promote and advertise an organisation, because we're then into pseudo-geocaches that are really a front for promotion of an agenda or business venture. But that's quite different from simply mentioning a commercial organisation or venture; even if the mention is pretty blatant.

[+GAZ]

Said in my best "old geezers" voice........

 

"Ahh remember when thee could put a cache oot anywhere and thoose would cum and farnd it regardless........aye lad, them wuz thee days"

[+riviouveur]

I know it's an academic argument, but I disagree. The leaflets are for the AWAY match, not the current one. So the football club will be happy that their fans are getting extra help (no money-off vouchers, just helpful info). We often see this sort of info getting passed around football forums and websites without any problem at all. In fact, you'll often find it in a football programme (perhaps under a title like..."Away we go...to Stockport"), even though it might discourage fans from using the official facilities in favour of a pub near the ground.

Hold on. Where did this "away match" and "travelling fans" thing come from? I specifically said:

what would happen if you stood inside your local football ground and handed out flyers for a local business, without prior authorisation from the football club.

No reference to travelling fans and away matches. But if it makes things easier, let's replace "football ground" with "pub" and "handing out flyers for a local business" with "putting up posters for a special offer at Carphone Warehouse". I'm sure that holes can be picked in this analogy too, but it's a reasonably simple general principle: don't use someone else's resources, without their permission, to advertise another business. Where it gets complex is deciding what constitutes advertising; Groundspeak is fairly conservative about that, but that's their choice to make.

[+The Hornet]

Well well well! At a loose end this morning and thought I would pop in here to see what was happening these days. It's been a while

 

I see little has chagend (apart from the look of the forums). Acvtually that's not quite correct, the old craziness seems to have got worse. How can this cache possibly cause the sky to fall in and be responsible for the end of the geocaching world as we know it? The OP was trying to do something that was always a prime reason for geocaching - taking someone to an unexpected and interesting location. To interpret a current film location as "commercial" ............... sigh!!

 

When I was reviewing not only would I happily publish the cache but I would probably have sent the CO a note congratulating them on finding such an interesting spot.

 

If this is how Groundspeak caches are being restricted these days I'm glad we have an alternative listing option available.

 

As I said .......... sigh!!

[+drsolly]

To interpret a current film location as "commercial" ............... sigh!!

 

 

It's a slippery slope, and we have to be vigilant lest commercialism and similar ruin the game.

 

I'm a bit concerned about naming churches. That also gets us onto a slippery slope.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Hold on. Where did this "away match" and "travelling fans" thing come from?

I saw that your analogy was flawed, so to keep to the same theme I just made the analogy more like the geocaching case in question. You were comparing the mention of a specific film or pub with advertising a competitor. I adjusted that to comparing it with giving out useful information about a non-competing business; which I think is more accurate.

 

The whole point is that, whether it's a cinema, pub, restaurant or whatever; it's not in competition with Groundspeak, nor is it advertising (when it can be clearly seen to have a purpose in relation to the geocache experience).

So no wonder people have trouble understanding the rules.

 

I wonder if my cache would be published if I mentioned something like "The Wood Street NCP Car Park is probably the best place to leave your car"?

I suppose I'd have to reword it. But how ridiculous.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Happy Humphrey

[+Happy Humphrey]

I see little has chagend (apart from the look of the forums). Acvtually that's not quite correct, the old craziness seems to have got worse. How can this cache possibly cause the sky to fall in and be responsible for the end of the geocaching world as we know it? The OP was trying to do something that was always a prime reason for geocaching - taking someone to an unexpected and interesting location. To interpret a current film location as "commercial" ............... sigh!!

As riviouveur might say;

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...

[+Mark+Karen]

As riviouveur might say;

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose...

 

C'est vrai!

[+Ant89]

So, the problem is the fact it contains the name of a particular film.

Why not for the title use the name of the location rather than the name of the film?

for example "A view to [insert place name]" Or "Film set view" "Quiet on set" "action" (There are lots of ways you can refer to a "film" without mentioning "the film" in the title)

 

For the description something like

"the 'black and white house' seen from the cache was used in [insert date] for the the filming of part of an award winning film*." *non-existant link to wikipedia article on the film. (include other information about the "house" - if any, if there is nothing else to say about the main location, tell people briefly about other things in the area.

[+abanazar]

But if it makes things easier, let's replace "football ground" with "pub" and "handing out flyers for a local business" with "putting up posters for a special offer at Carphone Warehouse". I'm sure that holes can be picked in this analogy too, but it's a reasonably simple general principle: don't use someone else's resources, without their permission, to advertise another business. Where it gets complex is deciding what constitutes advertising; Groundspeak is fairly conservative about that, but that's their choice to make.

Let's see if my swiss cheese borer still works ...

 

I don't think this analogy is quite accurate either. But staying with pubs and posters, isn't it more like Eric from Borchester, one of The Nag's Head pub team's top darts players, puts a poster up in The Nag's Head (analogy: the CO is part of geocaching.com's community, just like Eric and The Nag's Head). Eric regularly puts posters up promoting darts events, which is OK with the landlord because darts is really important to all the locals. The poster says "Darts event planned at Lower Loxley Hall in Ambridge". The poster continues "All Nag's Head followers are welcome to attend. No food or drink at Lower Loxley Hall, so we could celebrate afterwards at the nearby Geocacher's Arms. Also you may be interested that Lower Loxley was used as a film location in the recent movie <Alien 8: Phone Home>, so we are calling the event Lower Loxley Alien Darts Frenzy."

 

I don't think the landlord of the Nag's Head would raise an eyebrow over this (even though The Geocacher's Arms is in the same trade, which is not the case back in the real world of geocaching).

[markandlynn]

Just use the historical event that the film itself is based on as your inspiration.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Logue

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_VI_of_the_United_Kingdom

 

As the film is based on real life characters who happen to be dead and real life events just refer to them in your listing.

 

and then state that this location was inspired by this historical event.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Although we can clearly work around these restrictions, the point is; why do we have to, when they make life slightly more difficult for the cache owner, the cache seeker, the reviewer and ultimately Groundspeak? No-one benefits, and the reviewer comes over as too picky when this is given as a reason to not publish.

 

A film location is something of interest, suitable inspiration for a cache placement. Although you can word it so that we can't actually tell what film the location is relevant to, that rather loses the point. If you mention that there is a pub nearby which could be handy for a spot of lunch but then don't say the name of the pub, that looks like a mistake and could cause some irritation and confusion.

 

If I was writing a walking guide to the Cotswolds or somewhere, I'd be expected to name the pubs along the route (whether or not they pay for a mention). If a current film was shot at a location on the way, I'd be expected to name it.

I'd be astonished if the publisher asked me to reword the route description so that the pubs and films weren't mentioned by name, and would quickly look for a different publisher.

[+redsox_mark]

While it's true that most films are available on DVD, Groundspeak has decided that that does not make all films commercial (but a cache which referred to the DVD product, rather than the movie itself, would probably not be published). Similarly, there are hundreds of caches devoted to people's favourite bands, many of whom have albums which are still available. You can talk about the band in a cache; you can refer to their classic 1972 album "Chocolate Meringue Narthex III"; you can even quote from a song (one verse and chorus maximum, please). But you can't talk about the brand new digital remastered edition which brings the sound to life like never before. Nor can you talk about their latest release. Give it a couple of years.

 

I found this fascinating. I understood the basic "can't mention the name of a business or commercial product" which is in the guidelines. But I had no idea there was this level of further classification underneath, and that mentioning something recent (e.g. Chocolate Meringue Narthex's first album release in nearly 40 years) causes a specific problem, while older material might not.

 

Though I do see the logic in trying to separate "pop culture" from commercialism. Should we consider pub names as part of our "Pop Culture". Oh, that's another discussion...

Edited March 3, 2011 by redsox_mark

[+Mad H@ter]

Although we can clearly work around these restrictions, the point is; why do we have to, when they make life slightly more difficult for the cache owner, the cache seeker, the reviewer and ultimately Groundspeak? No-one benefits, and the reviewer comes over as too picky when this is given as a reason to not publish.

 

A film location is something of interest, suitable inspiration for a cache placement. Although you can word it so that we can't actually tell what film the location is relevant to, that rather loses the point. If you mention that there is a pub nearby which could be handy for a spot of lunch but then don't say the name of the pub, that looks like a mistake and could cause some irritation and confusion.

 

If I was writing a walking guide to the Cotswolds or somewhere, I'd be expected to name the pubs along the route (whether or not they pay for a mention). If a current film was shot at a location on the way, I'd be expected to name it.

I'd be astonished if the publisher asked me to reword the route description so that the pubs and films weren't mentioned by name, and would quickly look for a different publisher.

Just what I was going to say, why can't we call a spade a spade? What is the point in describing it as a wooden handeled tool with a metal blade used for digging ?

 

I think that there are a few Groundspeak representatives that need to get a wee dose of common sence