Jump to content

Copyright for my own pictures?


F0NIX

Recommended Posts

How do people react on the new term where you have to give away your copyright of your own photos?

 

If this rule still persist, I will remove all pictures I've taken so far (that is not much) and will never put up any new either (and that could have been many...)

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by F0NIX:

How do people react on the new term where you have to give away your copyright of your own photos?

 

If this rule still persist, I will remove all pictures I've taken so far (that is not much) and will never put up any new either (and that could have been many...)


 

What ARE you talking about???

 

I know of NO section on THIS forum where you haev to surrender your copyright to your OWN photos. I know Yahoo requires it...which is WHY I don't post my photos on any of their groups, or even link to them

 

Give me a Tall ship, and a Star to steer her bye...

 

The White Fleet....

Link to post

quote:
Posted by AllenLacy:

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 I'm reading this properly, it's stating that anything that I write, or pictures that I upload, remain *my* property as the original author. Perhaps Jeremy could correct me if I'm wrong.

 

*****

Link to post

Read the language posted by AllenLacy. It says that copyright REMAINS with the original author. You are only giving a license to the site to use the material here. So what's wrong with that? Are you reading another term someplace else? I kind of like it that I retain ownership of my logs, pictures, forum posts, etc.

 

EDIT: Just noticed that the original question was submitted by someone who may not speak Legalese as their first language. In that case, I'm happy to help translate! Nothing to worry about, your photos are yours.

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Next time, instead of getting married, I think I'll just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house.

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by The Leprechauns:

..... It says that copyright REMAINS with the original author. You are only giving a license to the site to use the material here. So what's wrong with that? Are you reading another term someplace else?


 

Probably he is worried about this part of the terms of use

 

quote:

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.


Link to post

I'm no lawyer, but it does sound like while you retain copyright, you're granting unlimited license for Groundspeak, and whoever they choose, ability to do whatever they will with everything you submit to the site.

 

Kind of defeats the purpose of retaining copyright, doesn't it?

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

Sounds like doublespeak to me.

*****


 

I agree. In this regard it is interesting to note the different wording of the two statements that we need to check since a few days (see quotation below). It seems that they do not even expect us to *understand* the terms of use agreement.

(Maybe I am too cynical.)

 

quote:

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

 

Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement.


 

BTW: In my opinion both statements that need to be checked are problematic insofar as there are many cachers out there who are not able to understand a rather complex English text. (Some of them do not speak English at all.)

 

Cezanne.

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

I'm no lawyer, but it does sound like while you retain copyright, you're granting unlimited license for Groundspeak, and whoever they choose, ability to do whatever they will with everything you submit to the site.


True, but a case can be made for the fact that Groundspeak actually needs all of those rights in order to run geocaching.com:

use, reproduce, distribute, import, broadcast, transmit - these all happen whenever you view a cache page.

modify and create derivative works of - this allows the approvers to edit your cache description, the site to include your cache description in their own page layout, and the site to generate scaled versions of your log pictures.

license, offer to sell, and sell, rent, lease or lend copies of - this one's not so obvious, but one could argue that Pocket Queries are one or more of the above. They certainly fall under the category of "license."

publicly display and publicly perform - again, this potentially happens whenever you view a cache page.

quote:

Kind of defeats the purpose of retaining copyright, doesn't it?


Not at all. If you assigned the copyright, you could no longer do whatever you wanted with the cache description. Since you retain copyright, however, you're allowed to do things with it that Groundspeak would never do, such as post it on N@v!c@che.

 

pirate.cgi.gif

Link to post

quote:
From the Terms of Usage Agreement:

...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.


I understand what Warm Fuzzies is saying, but here's where I have a problem -- Groundspeak is saying that they can *sell*, or *rent* *my* copyright property *without* offering me any reimbursement or consideration whatsoever. I don't think I'll be uploading any more photographs.

 

*****

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

I understand what Warm Fuzzies is saying, but here's where I have a problem -- Groundspeak is saying that they can *sell*, or *rent* _*my*_ copyright property *without* offering me any reimbursement or consideration whatsoever.


I don't think you understand completely. Groundspeak is already selling or renting your copyrighted materials, every time they send a PQ to someone who gave them $30/year for the privilege of getting one. Are you really saying you want a cut of that action?

 

pirate.cgi.gif

Link to post

quote:
Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy wrote:

Are you really saying you want a cut of that action?


No. Not at all. What bothers me is the ambiguity that they can sell or rent or in some manner make my copyright property available to anyone else of their choosing. By their terms, they could sell (and profit from) my photograph to another website, or magazine, or other organization or individual. That steps over the line of the permission that I'm willing to allow them.

 

*****

Link to post

quote:
AllenLacy wrote:

If you are really worried about a chance that they will profit from your photographs...


It's not so much the profit aspect -- it's that an image might be used somewhere that I don't feel is appropriate or acceptable. Or it may not be acknowledged that I am the photographer. Your suggestion to place them on my own website makes perfect sense.

 

*****

Link to post

I understand what you are saying, Fuzzy. However, why should there be any language in there about "irrvocable" or "perpetual." I'd feel much more comfortable if it was limited to only the time which I've the data hosted on the site. If I'm reading right, once it's uploaded they can do whatever they please with it as well.

 

What if I wanted to terminate the license? According to the TOU, I can't. That I'm not comfortable with.

 

What if I captured a really cool picture, one so cool that some media type wanted to buy it? According to the TOU, they could approach Jeremy and he could benefit from it instead of me. I do have a problem with that.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

I understand what you are saying, Fuzzy. However, why should there be any language in there about "irrvocable" or "perpetual."


Because caches never really go away. Archival is not permanent, etc. Besides, there's backups. If you could revoke their permission to have copies of your copyrighted material, they'd have to destroy all of their backups every time someone did.

quote:
What if I captured a really cool picture, one so cool that some media type wanted to buy it? According to the TOU, they could approach Jeremy and _he_ could benefit from it instead of me. I do have a problem with that.
Possibly, but unlikely. Your copy probably has better resolution, given the 100K limit.

 

pirate.cgi.gif

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:

 

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

What if I captured a really cool picture, one so cool that some media type wanted to buy it? According to the TOU, they could approach Jeremy and _he_ could benefit from it instead of me. I do have a problem with that.


Possibly, but unlikely. Your copy probably has better resolution, given the 100K limit.


Good point Sissy-n-CR. It just wouldn't be fair.

 

Your point is moot Fuzzies -- if a web media company wanted to buy it, the resolution would be fine.

 

*****

edit: typo

 

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on August 27, 2003 at 02:17 PM.]

Link to post

I don't think anybody is going to be buying (or selling) any 100k jpg photos. icon_wink.gif Maybe if they were 4+ meg images it might be more of an issue, but not some shrunken down image. icon_biggrin.gif

 

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Link to post

quote:
Marky wrote:

I don't think anybody is going to be buying (or selling) any 100k jpg photos.


Your point is moot Marky -- if a web media company wanted to buy them, the resolution would be fine.

 

There are lots of applications for a databank of location images that are sorted by geographic coordinates.

 

*****

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Marky wrote:

I don't think anybody is going to be buying (or selling) any 100k jpg photos.


Your point is moot Marky -- if a web media company wanted to buy them, the resolution would be fine.

 

There are lots of applications for a databank of location images that are sorted by geographic coordinates.


I probably should have used Moot as my username, but that's off topic. icon_wink.gif I don't care if anyone sells my 100k images. icon_smile.gif Of course, I'm not a professional photographer and most of my pictures suck anyway. I will just continue to click off those boxes and hope that it doesn't end up coming around and biting me in the butt. icon_biggrin.gif

 

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Link to post

quote:
FONIX wrote:

If this rule still persist, I will remove all pictures I've taken so far (that is not much) and will never put up any new either (and that could have been many...)


I think you may have to contact the site admins directly to have your previous photos removed. Deleting them from your list of photos on your profile page does not delete them from the site.

 

I also agree, if anyone does not agree with these terms of the site, they should not upload future images.

 

Thanks for bringing up this topic.

 

*****

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
FONIX wrote:

If this rule still persist, I will remove all pictures I've taken so far (that is not much) and will never put up any new either (and that could have been many...)


I think you may have to contact the site admins directly to have your previous photos removed. Deleting them from your list of photos on your profile page does not delete them from the site.

 

I also agree, if anyone does not agree with these terms of the site, they should not upload future images.

 

Thanks for bringing up this topic.

 

*****


 

Well all I can say to the above is:

"If you're not willing to enjoy yourself here, please do your caching elsewhere", whoops, did I steal that from someone.

 

-Wily Javelina

Link to post

quote:
Wily Javelina wrote:

"If you're not willing to enjoy yourself here, please do your caching elsewhere", whoops, did I steal that from someone.


It's not a matter of anyone enjoying themselves here or not -- it's a matter of legally protecting what is yours.

 

And just so you know, I enjoy myself just fine. Thanks.

 

*****

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

quote:
Wily Javelina wrote:

"If you're not willing to enjoy yourself here, please do your caching elsewhere", whoops, did I steal that from someone.


It's not a matter of anyone enjoying themselves here or not -- it's a matter of legally protecting what is yours.

 

And just so you know, I enjoy myself just fine. Thanks.

 

*****


 

Here is a hypothetical question for you. Would you be upset if used one of your photos, from one of your logs, in one of my cache descriptions? Just curious.

 

-Wily Javelina

Link to post

Any would be photographer with hopes of selling photos would be unlikely to post them on a website they did not own.

 

To say that because joe six pack posts a picture on gc.com, and that because gc.com in turn *may* have the potential to sell or use it, somehow is *robbing* joe six pack of his darwin evolved rights doesn't sit well with me.

 

Whatever the case, you choose to upload, or you don't. It's good to know what the *revised* terms are I suppose, but I think the *threat* is over-stated...

 

Your 100k image with your insignia impressed upon it is probably worth very little to a web media company on it's own... and if the Nat'l Enquirer happens to want your Britney Spears photo (which *might* be worth enough money to warrant this lengthy discussion), they will want *your* ***original*** (So, no, I don't agree the 100k point is moot)

 

What is the point then? The terms have been more clearly defined in legal language, and now we know.

 

I'm sure gc.com has more to gain by having less band width eaten up by all the pictures that *aren't* going to get posted anymore, than by anything they would hope to gain by peddling those same 100k images.

 

Taking this to new levels of mental manipulation through legal jargon and perceptions of delluded draconian dealings doesn't do a dadgum...

 

(and yes, I am *only* taking a 30 day breather from the GENERAL forum...)

Link to post

That's a very interesting perspective Zuuk, and I agree with you in principle on several points. You overlook one aspect however, that is very, very, important.

 

If the folks at Groundspeak don't have any intention of using yours and my images and other intellectual properties for any other purpose other than to promote their website, then why the need for the wording that is used in the terms of use agreement?

 

*****

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

 

There are lots of applications for a databank of location images that are sorted by geographic coordinates.

 


 

Such as? Please elaborate.

 

What is the going rate for a 100k image of a fogged over view of Sumas Mountain? icon_razz.gificon_razz.gificon_razz.gif

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

 

If the folks at Groundspeak don't have any intention of using yours and my images and other intellectual properties for any other purpose other than to promote their website, then why the need for the wording that is used in the terms of use agreement?

 


 

One can only venture a guess on this without the site owner clarifying their reasons (should they even choose to do that).

 

Adding additonal terms seems to be in line with the sites continued growth and popularity. The owner has a vested interest in the future viability of the site, and has taken steps to ensure their interests are are legally entrenched. My guess is that their lawyer pulled the standard script out of a textbook.

Link to post

quote:
canadazuuk wrote:

Such as? Please elaborate.


Movie location scouts, travel agencies, special interest groups, etc...

 

quote:
canadazuuk wrote:

What is the going rate for a 100k image of a fogged over view of Sumas Mountain?


Probably nothing. But out of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of images, quite a few will be useable, don't you think?

 

If the folks at Groundspeak don't have any intention of using yours and my images and other intellectual properties for any other purpose other than to promote their website, then why the need for the wording that is used in the terms of use agreement?

 

*****

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

 

special interest groups

 


 

I'm not going to say what I am thinking right now. It would be off topic.

 

quote:
But out of tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of images, quite a few will be useable, don't you think?

 

It's like winning the lottery then. And you don't even *have* to buy a ticket per se.

 

I might agree that the consolidation of MANY 100k images would be worth something, but individual images being worth much... I doubt it.

 

quote:

If the folks at Groundspeak don't have any intention of using yours and my images and other intellectual properties for any other purpose other than to promote their website, then why the need for the wording that is used in the terms of use agreement?

 


 

And what will you do with the answer. What do you think the answer is?

 

Whatever the case, you either upload, or you don't.

 

I'm sure if enough folks perceived the same *threat* and stopped uploading, or boycotted the site entirely, *maybe* something would be changed. But I doubt there are too many folks that will be concerned enough about this to give it even more than a blank stare.

Link to post

quote:
FONIX wrote:

How do people react on the new term where you have to give away your copyright of your own photos?

 

If this rule still persist, I will remove all pictures I've taken so far (that is not much) and will never put up any new either (and that could have been many...)


There you have it FONIX, there are those who disagree with the new wording and there are those who don't understand the value of intellectual property. Trying to get those in the later category to realize the importance of protecting intellectual property is very difficult and that is why terms of use such as these are tolerated.

 

I'm with you though, if the wording remains the same, I won't upload any more images.

 

*****

Link to post

Perusing through the forums after reading this thread made me realize there's another issue about copyrighted images that's been overlooked....

 

How many avatars are copyrighted images and are being used here 'illegally'?

 

hmmmmm, just wondering

 

(by the way, mine is a picture I took myself of a detail from the 105th Pa. Vol. monument in Gettysburg)

 

"The hardest thing to find is something that's not there!"

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

 

There you have it FONIX, there are those who disagree with the new wording and there are those who don't understand the value of intellectual property.


 

What a spurious argument. Inflammatory. How rude.

 

Saying that those who do not agree with you on this issue 'don't understand the value of intellectual property' is at best, a deceptive ploy.

 

My way or the highway? Okay. Hope you get good gas mileage at least. Lots of hot wind blowing here. Got any other good conspiracy theories??? I've got lots myself. Your comparison lacks.

 

Very sad.

Link to post

While I agree there's not much to really worry about, it's mainly a principle thing, I wonder how Big J is going to handle pictures of people. Is there any way to know who the rights holder is of any one particular photo of that particular person? Did they get a release? Will depend on what the photo will be used for. A lot of questions about each and every photo would have to be answered before the photos could be sold as a whole. Then there's the issue of photo being uploaded by someone other than the actual copyright holder.

 

By the way, are people who take a picture of themselves with a cache camera considered work-for-hire? Who actually owns the photo in that case? Are they giving permission for the camera owner to do what they will with the photo?

 

It could happen. Say a cacher makes it huge in Hollywood. Can they come back later and demand the photo back? Or can Jeremy legally sell the photo to the Star/Sun/Inquirer?

 

Whatever the case is, I'll only be uploading my snap shots. The more interesting photos will be hosted offsite.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:

I'm with you though, if the wording remains the same, I won't upload any more images.


Apparently the Terms Of Use also applies to posts. Do you feel the same way about not posting anymore?

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

"A noble spirit embiggins the smallest man." - Jebediah Springfield

----------------------------------------------------------------

Link to post

quote:
canadazuuk wrote:

What a spurious argument. Inflammatory. How rude.

 

Saying that those who do not agree with you on this issue 'don't understand the value of intellectual property' is at best, a deceptive ploy.


Deceptive? On my part? I hardly think so. If you don't *get* the part about owning your intellectual property then you don't get it, do you? Go read the 2nd paragraph in section 5 of the terms of use, Zuuky -- then tell me again who's being deceptive.

 

A conspiracy theory? Take some more meds Zuuky -- you're obviously in need of them.

 

BTW: Wily Javelina -- No, I wouldn't be upset if someone used my photo on a cache page -- as long as they asked permission first I wouldn't have a problem with it. Using it on a cache description page is not the same as using it for financial gain or commercial benefit.

 

*****

Link to post

Okay, let's talk about a hypothetical here. Let's say Jeremy decided he wanted to make a cool new geocaching.com t-shirt without any stupid frogs or anime-ripoff kids. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that he wanted it to be a photomosaic (an idea he's mentioned at least once in the chat room, so not that off-the-wall.)

 

So, he runs some photomosaic software against the huge database of images from people's logs and such. He's got a really cool photomosaic of, for the sake of simplicity, some public-domain picture of the earth, and it's composed of 12,000 teeny-tiny versions of your log pictures.

 

Without that "sell, rent, or lease" clause in the terms of use, he has to figure out who owns the rights to all 12,000 of those pictures and get their permission. If even one of those people says no, he has to remove all of their pictures from consideration and redo all of the work. Sure, he could do all that, but it's much easier to just tell you that if you don't want geocaching.com to make money off your pictures, don't give your pictures to geocaching.com.

 

Personally, I have no problem with that sort of application. Jeremy's had the opportunity to screw us over many times before and not taken it, and I have no reason to believe he's been replaced with an evil twin overnight.

 

pirate.cgi.gif

Link to post

Fuzzies, are you following me?

 

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

 

*****

Link to post

The part of this whole diatribe that I find most objectionable is the conspiracy aspect.

 

There are those who believe that geocaching is a hobby and the site a primarily benevolent medium for pursuing it, and there are those that believe geocaching is a profession and the site a primarily malevolent entity out to do them injustice somehow.

 

Trying to get those in the later category to see the light would require a truck load of TEAM KFWB GPS cache prizes, and then some.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...