Photographs, permissions, and differences

[+T.D.M.22]

Well since discussing things related to certain events on threads about those events apparently has nothing to do with said events I'll start a thread here.

 

Why is there a specific permission required to use photos and stories and such from the Makers events? And why is permission from the person who created the event page required, rather than permission from the photographer/event attendee or the subjects of said photographs and stories adequate?

 

What makes these events so special that Groundspeak wants to use stories and pictures? Are other events just not interesting?

 

Basically-What makes these different than a normal event? Can any event qualify for the souvenir? How about a beer and wing night event?

Edited March 3, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[+Isonzo Karst]

The relevant sections from the terms of use from section 3 Ownership. It seems that they didn't need to ask, but did - an opt out option.

 

D. The Rights You Grant Us to Your Content. By submitting content to our services, you grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully transferable and sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content in any media now known or created in the future. You agree that we have no obligation to monitor or protect your rights in any content that you may submit to us, but in the event that someone else takes content you have submitted through our services without either of our permission, you give us the right to request that they take the content off of their website or otherwise stop using it.

[+niraD]

What makes these events so special that Groundspeak wants to use stories and pictures? Are other events just not interesting?

I am not a lackey, and I don't even play one on TV. But my guess is that they're expecting some photos of creative geocache/camouflage designs, like some of those displayed in the gallery for the Little Shop of Horrors event (or any of the LSOH events that have followed it).

[UncleJames]

niraD is onto it. We're hoping to elevate some of the events as examples of fun, instructive, creative Maker Madness events. The question about using images is a courteous way to gauge if people would like to be involved in that process.

[Jayme H]

The relevant sections from the terms of use from section 3 Ownership. It seems that they didn't need to ask, but did - an opt out option.

 

D. The Rights You Grant Us to Your Content. By submitting content to our services, you grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully transferable and sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content in any media now known or created in the future. You agree that we have no obligation to monitor or protect your rights in any content that you may submit to us, but in the event that someone else takes content you have submitted through our services without either of our permission, you give us the right to request that they take the content off of their website or otherwise stop using it.

Exactly. We wanted to be nice and give event owners an opt out option. The thought behind wanting to use the pictures is to highlight some of the well planned maker events for the rest of the community....maybe they will inspire more great events, more quality caches, more respect for those who do hide quality caches. The intent was to lift up the game and the community. I hope this explanation helps.

[+T.D.M.22]

Wow, 2 lackey lackeys answered. I feel special

 

But I still don't understand- wouldn't the people who took/posted the photo's be the ones you need to ask permission from, rather then the CO? I don't have a problem with you using my pictures or logs. I love to see something of mine in the next newsletter.

Edited March 3, 2014 by T.D.M.22

[Mr.Yuck]

The relevant sections from the terms of use from section 3 Ownership. It seems that they didn't need to ask, but did - an opt out option.

 

D. The Rights You Grant Us to Your Content. By submitting content to our services, you grant Groundspeak a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully transferable and sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content in any media now known or created in the future. You agree that we have no obligation to monitor or protect your rights in any content that you may submit to us, but in the event that someone else takes content you have submitted through our services without either of our permission, you give us the right to request that they take the content off of their website or otherwise stop using it.

 

That's interesting. I will have to look at my own terms of use. Now I've had trouble in the past, even getting temporary bans for mentioning "competing websites" here in these forums, but hopefully nothing will happen here. I am in fact an admin for an alternative Geocaching website, and I have a slideshow of Geocaching pictures uploaded to that website on our blog. I also have a Pinterest account with some "caching photos" uploaded there (although I never put any up there unless I can figure out what cache they are from). I am sensitive to showing pictures of Geocachers themselves (as opposed to scenery near the cache), but I do notice I have a couple showing Geocachers in the pictures. This doesn't count one of my fellow Admins, I have his ugly mug in several of them, and I'm sure he's OK with it.

 

I will be watching this thread with great interest. And don't ban me, please.

[Jayme H]

But I still don't understand- wouldn't the people who took/posted the photo's be the ones you need to ask permission from, rather then the CO?

LOL! We were chatting more around the office this morning about this. It seems that by being nice and offering this option we have accidentally caused a stir. The TOU say that we don't have to offer the option, in this case we were trying to be courteous. It could have been the individual cachers who were asked, but asking the event owners on the submission forms seemed simpler in this case...so the event owners were picked instead.

[+JBnW]

But I still don't understand- wouldn't the people who took/posted the photo's be the ones you need to ask permission from, rather then the CO?

LOL! We were chatting more around the office this morning about this. It seems that by being nice and offering this option we have accidentally caused a stir. The TOU say that we don't have to offer the option, in this case we were trying to be courteous. It could have been the individual cachers who were asked, but asking the event owners on the submission forms seemed simpler in this case...so the event owners were picked instead.

I think the point that's being cleverly avoided is that GS should be seeking the permission of the subject of the picture, especially if there's plans to use someone's likeness in some sort of publicity campaign. The CO of the event does not necessarily possess the rights to someone else's likeness, and probably not the photographer either. Especially for minors.

[+T.D.M.22]

But I still don't understand- wouldn't the people who took/posted the photo's be the ones you need to ask permission from, rather then the CO?

LOL! We were chatting more around the office this morning about this. It seems that by being nice and offering this option we have accidentally caused a stir. The TOU say that we don't have to offer the option, in this case we were trying to be courteous. It could have been the individual cachers who were asked, but asking the event owners on the submission forms seemed simpler in this case...so the event owners were picked instead.

I think the point that's being cleverly avoided is that GS should be seeking the permission of the subject of the picture, especially if there's plans to use someone's likeness in some sort of publicity campaign. The CO of the event does not necessarily possess the rights to someone else's likeness, and probably not the photographer either. Especially for minors.

 

That's what I'm getting at. Well I say the photographer, as the photographer should have permission/releases to post said photos.

 

It's like me buying the local mall. I can't give permission for them to use Bill's wife's picture in his wallet just because he is on my property.

[+funkymunkyzone]

I think the point that's being cleverly avoided is that GS should be seeking the permission of the subject of the picture, especially if there's plans to use someone's likeness in some sort of publicity campaign. The CO of the event does not necessarily possess the rights to someone else's likeness, and probably not the photographer either. Especially for minors.

I don't think any point is being cleverly avoided. If the pictures are being used for news or editorial purposes (GS blog, for example), no permission is required from the subject(s) of the picture. GS already has permission under the TOU from the uploader of the picture. There's the question of privacy, but that's not really an issue either because there would be no expectation of privacy at such an event - certainly if it is held in a public space or private space open to the public (and it would be hard to argue any geocaching event location is not open to the public for at least the duration of the event, even if it's someone's backyard, simply due to the guidelines of running an event). Seems like a bit of a non-issue.

[+BruceS]

Those that think they have rights to their likeness in public places should read about photographers rights (As it applies to U.S. only, don't know the rules elsewhere). Good place to start is http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[+T.D.M.22]

I don't think any point is being cleverly avoided. If the pictures are being used for news or editorial purposes (GS blog, for example), no permission is required from the subject(s) of the picture. GS already has permission under the TOU from the uploader of the picture. There's the question of privacy, but that's not really an issue either because there would be no expectation of privacy at such an event - certainly if it is held in a public space or private space open to the public (and it would be hard to argue any geocaching event location is not open to the public for at least the duration of the event, even if it's someone's backyard, simply due to the guidelines of running an event). Seems like a bit of a non-issue.

 

But since Groundspeak is promoting geocaching by that blog post wouldn't it not count as news? Or is it a specific type of news? And while the subjects may not need to give permission, like in your example, I do believe that permission is still required by the owner of the photograph. As the event organizer I am sure I can't give permission to use someone else's picture. That's why I'm confused. They are not my pictures.

[+JBnW]

Those that think they have rights to their likeness in public places should read about photographers rights (As it applies to U.S. only, don't know the rules elsewhere). Good place to start is http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

GS can certainly hide behind the law and their TOU. However, it doesn't seem like a decent, "community-building" thing to do when someone attending an event, or is with a group out caching, and specifically asks not to be included in photos, especially those that may get uploaded to the site and then used for a GS promotion. In fact, it seems like a good way to build ill-will, especially with new cachers who don't pour through the legalese of the TOU. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pretending to understand this position, but have met others who are very clear in their feelings, and will respect those over GS's or some general public "photographer's" "rights". And yes, it is a big deal when one plays this game in a small community.

[+funkymunkyzone]

But since Groundspeak is promoting geocaching by that blog post wouldn't it not count as news? Or is it a specific type of news? And while the subjects may not need to give permission, like in your example, I do believe that permission is still required by the owner of the photograph. As the event organizer I am sure I can't give permission to use someone else's picture. That's why I'm confused. They are not my pictures.

I'm not a lawyer so I can't speak for whether the GS blog would count as news/editorial vs commercial advertising, but personally I think it would be the former. With regards permission by the owner of the photograph, I'd suggest that most often the owner is also the uploader in which case they already gave permission through GS's TOU. I don't see where an issue is being created by this nice way of Groundspeak offering for events to specifically opt out of having any photos/stories used by them, as opposed to the default opt in as per their TOU. Is there some aspect of this I'm not understanding?

[+funkymunkyzone]

GS can certainly hide behind the law and their TOU. However, it doesn't seem like a decent, "community-building" thing to do when someone attending an event, or is with a group out caching, and specifically asks not to be included in photos, especially those that may get uploaded to the site and then used for a GS promotion. In fact, it seems like a good way to build ill-will, especially with new cachers who don't pour through the legalese of the TOU. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pretending to understand this position, but have met others who are very clear in their feelings, and will respect those over GS's or some general public "photographer's" "rights". And yes, it is a big deal when one plays this game in a small community.

I think that's just creating a problem (a whole different problem than anything to do with Makers Events) in order to justify your stance.

 

GS is not hiding behind anything, but the law and their TOU (it would not be sensible for them to not have TOU) do clearly spell out their position.

 

Any issue where someone doesn't want their photo taken while in public where that picture might get uploaded to gc.com, well, they should make it clear to the person taking the photo. I can't see any possible way that Groundspeak can or should take responsibility for that. If I was caching with you (in a public place) and you didn't want your photo taken (and uploaded) I would respect that and not photograph you, because that's the polite thing to do, not legally required but polite, but if someone else did then that would not be Groundspeak's fault.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

But I still don't understand- wouldn't the people who took/posted the photo's be the ones you need to ask permission from, rather then the CO?

LOL!

 

I don't care if someone takes my picture and puts it on the web, but if I did I'd be a bit offended if my concerns were a topic of laughter around Groundspeak offices.

 

 

We were chatting more around the office this morning about this. It seems that by being nice and offering this option we have accidentally caused a stir. The TOU say that we don't have to offer the option, in this case we were trying to be courteous. It could have been the individual cachers who were asked, but asking the event owners on the submission forms seemed simpler in this case...so the event owners were picked instead.

 

Since I was the one that initially brought up the issue in that other thread I probably should follow up here as well. I'm sure that it is much simpler just to have the event owner fill out the form but taking the simple approach may also mean that your nice offering won't have any impact whatsoever on those that are the subject of the photos. The cache owner is certainly under no obligation to extend the courtesy to attendees, informing them that photos taken during the event might appear in GS promotional material.

 

In my OP in the other thread I basically just suggested that a CO should inform attendees of their event that permission was given to GS to use any photos taken during the event. An attendee of a Maker event might be completely unaware that the registration form even exists. I fail to see how the TOU applies. I've only attended a few geocaching events, for those that I have attended, I've never been asked if I read the TOU. I have, however, met non-geocacher friends of geoachers at geocaching events. How does the TOU apply to a non-geocacher?

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

How does the TOU apply to a non-geocacher?

The TOU does not apply to a non-geocacher.

 

BUT, to *upload* a photo or a story, you need to have signed up in which case during sign-up you will have agreed to the TOU.

 

Simply put, a non-geocacher cannot upload anything to the site so they do not need to worry about the TOU.

 

In my OP in the other thread I basically just suggested that a CO should inform attendees of their event that permission was given to GS to use any photos taken during the event.

Since everyone who can upload photos or stories to the site has signed up and therefore agreed to the TOU, this is not a problem. In fact, it's kind of the opposite - the event owner should inform the attendees that on their behalf he/she has *excluded* them from having any of their stories/photos used, because that would be the non-default option. No?

[+SirDonB]

How does the TOU apply to a non-geocacher?

The TOU does not apply to a non-geocacher.

 

BUT, to *upload* a photo or a story, you need to have signed up in which case during sign-up you will have agreed to the TOU.

 

Simply put, a non-geocacher cannot upload anything to the site so they do not need to worry about the TOU.

 

In my OP in the other thread I basically just suggested that a CO should inform attendees of their event that permission was given to GS to use any photos taken during the event.

Since everyone who can upload photos or stories to the site has signed up and therefore agreed to the TOU, this is not a problem. In fact, it's kind of the opposite - the event owner should inform the attendees that on their behalf he/she has *excluded* them from having any of their stories/photos used, because that would be the non-default option. No?

 

Yes, but how does that apply if a cacher uploads a story or pic of a non cacher?

 

So as I understand it, if you opt out then TOU does not apply. That means that GS is giving the power to the event owner to decide if the want the TOU to apply to their event or not. If one or more of the caches are extremely well camoed or devious, that "maker" may not want it photed and made publicly known, especially if its a signature style and don't want it copied.

 

Just my 2¢

[+funkymunkyzone]

Yes, but how does that apply if a cacher uploads a story or pic of a non cacher?

 

So as I understand it, if you opt out then TOU does not apply. That means that GS is giving the power to the event owner to decide if the want the TOU to apply to their event or not. If one or more of the caches are extremely well camoed or devious, that "maker" may not want it photed and made publicly known, especially if its a signature style and don't want it copied.

 

Just my 2¢

 

See below:

If the pictures are being used for news or editorial purposes (GS blog, for example), no permission is required from the subject(s) of the picture. GS already has permission under the TOU from the uploader of the picture. There's the question of privacy, but that's not really an issue either because there would be no expectation of privacy at such an event - certainly if it is held in a public space or private space open to the public (and it would be hard to argue any geocaching event location is not open to the public for at least the duration of the event, even if it's someone's backyard, simply due to the guidelines of running an event).

 

Effectively, the subject of the photo has no rights if their photo is taken in a public space, or one that is open to the public, if that photo is to be used for news/editorial purposes. Furthermore, if someone does not want something photographed, the onus is on them to keep it from public view - notwithstanding what I mentioned in another post regarding simple polite behaviour regarding a request to not be photographed.

Edited March 4, 2014 by funkymunkyzone