Jomarac5 Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 A discussion in these forums has prompted me to ask the following: When you sign-up for a service or upload files on/to the web, do you read the terms and conditions of the website first? ***** Link to comment
+parkrrrr Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 There's no option for "Yes, if the website makes me (virtually) sign something that says I read them. Otherwise, usually no." Link to comment
Jomarac5 Posted August 27, 2003 Author Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:There's no option for "Yes, if the website makes me (virtually) sign something that says I read them. Otherwise, usually no." Doesn't matter -- either you read them or you don't. The question is not, "do you agree to them". ***** Link to comment
+TEAM 360 Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Jomarac5: quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:There's no option for "Yes, if the website makes me (virtually) sign something that says I read them. Otherwise, usually no." Doesn't matter -- either you read them or you don't. The question is not, "do you agree to them". ***** AHA! See, I KNEW it would be a trick question! Link to comment
+sept1c_tank Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Always...except when TEAM 360's new avatar is blinding me! ==============="If it feels good...do it"================ **(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")** . Link to comment
+TEAM 360 Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Kinda jumps right out there and grabs ya, huh? I like it...I like it alot... Sorry, Jomarac5. We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic... Link to comment
Mr. Big Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Yeah, I print them out and save them with all my matress tags! They make great trade items, too! Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone really isn't out to get you. Link to comment
+JamesJM Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 According to my calculations, as of now, 92% say "yes" to some degree...the LEAST degree being "Very Rarely". But see, I don't even believe THAT. NO ONE EVER read those things, no one, as in never, ever, for any reason. Sooo the most interesting stat to come out of your poll is this: 92% of geocachers are liars. I think Neilson will back me up on this. - JamesJM Link to comment
+parkrrrr Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Jomarac5: quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy:There's no option for "Yes, if the website makes me (virtually) sign something that says I read them. Otherwise, usually no." Doesn't matter -- either you read them or you don't. The question is not, "do you agree to them". And the answer to the question is, I read them if and only if I have to perform some affirmative action signifying that I agree to them. At that point, I either agree to them or I don't, but that wasn't the question. Why are you so quick to assume that everyone else has the same infacility with the English language that you apparently do? Link to comment
Team Titus213 Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Gosh, Warm and Fuzzy, you seem to be cold and prickly today. ------------------------- What are you looking for? Link to comment
+JamesJM Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Titus2_13:Gosh, Warm and Fuzzy, you seem to be cold and prickly today. ------------------------- What are you looking for? Hehehehe, got caught on a technicality didn't you Titus? Ya gotta get those wheretofore's and heretoafter therebywhofuhmiddleboggins down better. - JamesJM Link to comment
Jomarac5 Posted August 27, 2003 Author Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy wrote:Why are you so quick to assume that everyone else has the same infacility with the English language that you apparently do? Not sure that infacility is a word, but I get the gist of your question -- I pick my words carefully, is it unreasonable to expect others who reply to them, to read them carefully? ***** Link to comment
+opey one Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Hmm... I'm still trying to figure out what relation this has, but my wife came back from the hair salon with some term conditioner. Maybe it was perm. Term, perm, what's the difference? Green acres is the place to be..... Link to comment
mckee Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 I never do. Typically they cover acceptable use, which any 10 year old can pretty much figure out on their own. Fortunately I'm not just any 10 year old! Mostly they justify mods' and owner/operators' right to ban members and delete or lock threads. Since you cannot really put a monetary value on posting on a board, you're not likely to be sued for failure to comply with the terms. If someone tries to, I suspect the first judge it goes before will stamp "Frivolous Lawsuit" on the file and charge the lawyer and his client with contempt of court for wasting everybody's time and tax money. -------------------- You have the right to defend yourself, even when geocaching! Link to comment
+seneca Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by mckee:Since you cannot really put a monetary value on posting on a board, you're not likely to be sued for failure to comply with the terms. Its not just being sued that you have to worry about. As discussed on the other thread, are you aware that, pursuant to the Groundspeak Terms and Conditions, once you submit material to this site, over which you own the copyright, (including photographs), you will have permanently lost the legal ability to grant any other party an exclusive license to use it? I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. Link to comment
+Team Cacheopeia Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 I just kind of gloss over them... just to make sure that there isn't any clause about signing my soul over to the devil or giving full authority for spyware to be installed on my computer. But I do agree with Warm Fuzzies... if a website goes out of its way to make SURE that I've read them, I figure they've got their reasons, and I usually read them (or at least more heavily gloss over them) then. Amer and Bel Link to comment
+carleenp Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: But see, I don't even believe THAT. NO ONE EVER read those things, no one, as in never, ever, for any reason. I sometimes read them, but I'm a nerdy lawyer. quote: Its not just being sued that you have to worry about. As discussed on the other thread, are you aware that, pursuant to the Groundspeak Terms and Conditions, once you submit material to this site, over which you own the copyright, (including photographs), you will have permanently lost the legal ability to grant any other party an exclusive license to use it? I posted something in the other thread about this. Yes, I think that is right, but I doubt in reality that geocaching is looking to use material uploaded in a particulary worrisome way. Sure, they might want to use something when advertising etc, but I doubt they are looking to cash in on something that becomes famous (although who knows). I think the main reason for the language is to avoid geocaching being sued if they post (which they do everytime a person uploads something) or re-post something and someone get annoyed and tries to sue them for it. Regardless, it is their site and they can set the terms of service, which are pretty standard legal mumbo jumbo here. Edit: As an example, everytime someone takes a pic from a cache log and submits it for caption or photoshop in the forums, geocaching has also reposted it. What if the person involved got mad because they felt their pic was private in the place they uploaded it and didn't like the captions or photoshop jobs? So, the person sues geocaching. The terms of service stop that. Link to comment
Jomarac5 Posted August 27, 2003 Author Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: carleenp wrote:Yes, I think that is right, but I doubt in reality that geocaching is looking to use material uploaded in a particulary worrisome way. Says who? How can you realistically make a statement like that? In reality, companies do this type of thing every day. quote: carleenp wrote:I think the main reason for the language is to avoid geocaching being sued if they post (which they do everytime a person uploads something) or re-post something and someone get annoyed and tries to sue them for it. The wording that we're referring to (section 5) has nothing to do with what you're talking about. It's about license rights for them to use our images or intellectual property for whatever purpose they should choose, without having to ask our permission to do so. It's too broad for my liking. quote: carleep wrote:...they can set the terms of service, which are pretty standard legal mumbo jumbo here. They do set the terms of use, and after being made aware of the newly updated terms of use today, I will no longer upload my photographs to the website. I find it odd that a lawyer would use the expression "standard legal mumbo jumbo". ***** Link to comment
+seneca Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by carleenp:... I doubt in reality that geocaching is looking to use material uploaded in a particulary worrisome way. Sure, they might want to use something when advertising etc, but I doubt they are looking to cash in on something that becomes famous (although who knows). I think the main reason for the language is to avoid geocaching being sued if they post (which they do everytime a person uploads something) or re-post something and someone get annoyed and tries to sue them for it. I agree with you Carleenp, and if I was Groundspeak's lawyer I would insist on the same language. However, I would hope that in the event that the National Enquirer does offer me big bucks for the exclusive right to publish my “Brittney Spears geocaching in the nude” photo that I snapped and uploaded to one of my cache logs, that Groundspeak will consider allowing me to revoke their license of unlimited use of it. (O.K. I admit it, this post is actually just a ploy to get all the guys to review in detail all of the caches I have found). I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. Link to comment
+carleenp Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Ok Jomarac, in order: 1) I stated later *who really knows* 2) Yeah, it is really broad, but because of that it meets that purpose under just about any circumstances. Not speaking about fairness to users here, just speaking of my personal opinion of why that language could be there. Of course it can be broader than that if geocaching desires to make it so. My opinion was based on my personal faith that they wouldn't, not on legal reasoning. 3) That makes sense. If you have concerns, don't upload. Link to comment
+carleenp Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: However, I would hope that in the event that the National Enquirer does offer me big bucks for the exclusive right to publish my “Brittney Spears geocaching in the nude” photo that I snapped and uploaded to one of my cache logs, that Groundspeak will consider allowing me to revoke their license of unlimited use of it. LOL, I suggest that you reach that agreement BEFORE you upload it. Link to comment
Jomarac5 Posted August 27, 2003 Author Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: carleenp wrote:1) I stated later *who really knows* And that's the point, isn't it? quote: carleenp wrote:2) Yeah, it is really broad, but because of that it meets that purpose under just about any circumstances. Not speaking about fairness to users here, just speaking of my personal opinion of why that language could be there. Of course it can be broader than that if geocaching desires to make it so. My opinion was based on my personal faith that they wouldn't, not on legal reasoning. I hope when you're representing a client that you don't rely on your personal faith. The section that we're talking about is not designed to be defensive, it's designed offensively to give them the right to use yours or my images and/or intellectual property *any* way that they choose -- on the site, or off of the site, today, tomorrow, or five years from now. This is the aspect that is too broad for my liking. Seneca, I disagree that it is necessary for the language to be this way. I don't see where there is a *need* to own the rights to yours and my images beyond the scope that is necessary to operate their website. It's too broad. ***** Link to comment
+seneca Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Jomarac5: quote: carleenp wrote:... My opinion was based on my personal faith that they wouldn't, not on legal reasoning. I hope when you're representing a client that you don't rely on your personal faith.... ***** Jomarac5 - did you just skip over the word “personal” when you read that line or do you not know the difference between “personal” and “professional”. Perhaps you should look it up. I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. Link to comment
Jomarac5 Posted August 27, 2003 Author Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: Seneca wrote:Jomarac5 - did you just skip over the word “personal” when you read that line or do you not know the difference between “personal” and “professional”. Perhaps you should look it up. Skipped over or don't know the difference? Hardly. She's mentioned in this thread that she's a lawyer and she's giving an opinion on legal language here that is read by others reading this thread that is, perhaps not good advice, personally, or professionally. ***** Link to comment
+carleenp Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: I hope when you're representing a client that you don't rely on your personal faith. The section that we're talking about is not designed to be defensive, it's designed offensively to give them the right to use your or my images and/or intellectual property *any* way that they choose -- on the site, or off of the site, today, tomorrow, or five years from now. This is the aspect that is too broad for my liking. Well first, I work for an appellate court, so I don't represent clients. Instead, I help decide how to interpret clauses like that! Anyway, personal faith has nothing to do with my legal thinking! If I represented a web site, I would suggest similar language. If I represented someone who took issue with the language, obviously I would look for interpretations that benefitted my client. It is that type of stuff that makes me glad I have a job where I get to try to find the correct answer to problems instead of whatever suits a given client! Second, you are right, it is offensive (as opposed to defensive). That is why it completely takes care of my example. But because of that, you are also right about how it could be used in an offensive (again as opposed to defensive) manner. So I understand your concerns. I just personally am not concerned about it. If people are, then yes, it is good they are aware of it so that they don't accidentally give an unlimited license. Thus why it is actually a good idea to read all that stuff! Link to comment
Jomarac5 Posted August 27, 2003 Author Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: carleenp wrote:Well first, I work for an appellate court, so I don't represent clients. Instead, I help decide how to interpret clauses like that! Anyway, personal faith has nothing to do with my legal thinking! If I represented a web site, I would suggest similar language. If I represented someone who took issue with the language, obviously I would look for interpretations that benefitted my client. It is that type of stuff that makes me glad I have a job where I get to try to find the correct answer to problems instead of whatever suits a given client! Second, you are right, it is offensive (as opposed to defensive). That is why it completely takes care of my example. But because of that, you are also right about how it could be used in an offensive (again as opposed to defensive) manner. So I understand your concerns. I just personally am not concerned about it. If people are, then yes, it is good they are aware of it so that they don't accidentally give an unlimited license. Thus why it is actually a good idea to read all that stuff! I'm OK with this reply. Thanks. ***** Link to comment
+carleenp Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: Skipped over or don't know the difference? Hardly. She's mentioned in this thread that she's a lawyer and she's giving an opinion on legal language here that is read by others reading this thread that is, perhaps not good advice, personally, or professionally. Where I said *personal* I meant that instead of *professional.* I must note that I am not giving legal advice either. My comments are based on some legal knowledge (but with personal comments), but I am in no way trying to say how a court would actually interpret that clause. I need to make that clear. Also, I don't disagree with you that the clause is bad for users and good for geocaching. I just *personally* am not concerned about it. Link to comment
+carleenp Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: I'm OK with this reply. Thanks. And I'm OK with your's. Thanks! Link to comment
Jomarac5 Posted August 27, 2003 Author Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: carleenp wrote:...a bunch of stuff pertaining to personal and professional legal mumbo jumbo Point taken. Thanks. ***** Link to comment
+seneca Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by carleenp:I must note that I am not giving legal advice either. My comments are based on some legal knowledge (but with personal comments), but I am in no way trying to say how a court would actually interpret that clause. I need to make that clear. Typical lawyer CMA language! I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. Link to comment
+carleenp Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: Typical lawyer CMA language! Yep! You nailed it! My job doesn't allow me to give outside legal advice, but I can express my general personal opinion (even if it is a personal opinion about a legal issue). Even that sounds like a legal problem doesn't it? Ack! [This message was edited by carleenp on August 27, 2003 at 10:10 PM.] Link to comment
+carleenp Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: carleenp wrote:...a bunch of stuff pertaining to personal and professional legal mumbo jumbo Hmmm, looks like I have been edited. LOL! Link to comment
+RobertM Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 What about if I put my terms and conditions under all the photos I upload on how they can / cannot be used? Then there's no confusion about who's stealing, ummm, I mean using, my photos. Link to comment
+carleenp Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote: What about if I put my terms and conditions under all the photos I upload on how they can / cannot be Oh now that is an interesting legal question! I won't even attempt to answer it, even though I have an idea or gut feeling about the answer. But that would get way too close to giving legal advice for me. Sorry! Of course, since I'm a legal nerd, I just might look into it for my own knowledge. Maybe I could use it in my class. Link to comment
+seneca Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by RobertM:What about if I put my terms and conditions under all the photos I upload on how they can / cannot be used? Then there's no confusion about who's stealing, ummm, I mean using, my photos. Now that's an interesting angle. It is of course your act of "submitting" materials, that purportedly grants Groundspeak an irrevocable license to use them. Perhaps there could be an argument that written restrictions on use, attached to the uploaded material, would render the upload a "non-submission". If I was Groundspeak and saw such a qualified upload, I would remove it from the site and give you one warning not to do it again. I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. Link to comment
+TEAM 360 Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Deleted to to knowitall attitude I received. [This message was edited by TEAM 360 on August 28, 2003 at 12:24 PM.] Link to comment
+RobertM Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by TEAM 360:Or Groundspeak could ... blah ... blah ... Are you a lawyer? Doesn't sound like it to me! Link to comment
+TEAM 360 Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by RobertM: quote:Originally posted by TEAM 360:Or Groundspeak could ... blah ... blah ... Are you a lawyer? Doesn't sound like it to me! No, I'm not. Don't need to go to Law School to know my Contracts and Covenants. Go blah blah yourself. I am giving a valid argument, and you want to sit up on your high and mighty perch and dismiss it just because I don't hold a Juris Doctorate. I am getting tired of the Elitist Attitudes exhibited by people like you. Take your KMart degree and your Sears suit and go chase an ambulance, would you? Link to comment
+RobertM Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by TEAM 360:No, I'm not. Don't need to go to Law School to know my Contracts and Covenants. Thought you weren't. You do not seem to have a valid argument, nor even know how to argue. I'll leave it up to Seneca and CarleenP for info on this, as they are lawyers (or claim to be). Link to comment
+RobertM Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by TEAM 360:Take your KMart degree and your Sears suit and go chase an ambulance, would you? I believe Seneca chases those. Link to comment
+RobertM Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 I think you are missing the whole point here Team360. In the past I've uploaded MY pictures for the enjoyment of others on the Geocaching.com website, not for them to become the property of Groundspeak/Geocaching.com and for them to make a buck or 2 from it. No one notified me that the terms of use has changed, nor did my original terms of use mention that they are subject to change. I have a legitimate argument here. Cut the childish KMart/Sears remarks and keep them to yourself. I'll have to Jomarac5 you for taking this thread off-topic! ;-) Link to comment
Mushtang Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Gosh Jomarac5, how many of the above posts by YOU were about carleenp's personal/professional opinion of the terms and conditions, and how many of the above posts by YOU were actually on topic? You're the biggest crybaby when people start to have an off topic discussion. Shouldn't you stick to discussing if people read the terms and conditions before uploading files, rather than what the terms and conditions might mean to carleenp??? ---------------------------------------------------------------- "A noble spirit embiggins the smallest man." - Jebediah Springfield ---------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment
+TEAM 360 Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 LOOK BOY! AN AMBULANCE! GO FETCH! Lose your dismissive attitude. Better yet, keep it, I am sure holidays are a blast at your house. Link to comment
+RobertM Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 quote:Originally posted by TEAM 360:LOOK BOY! AN AMBULANCE! GO FETCH! Lose your dismissive attitude. Better yet, keep it, I am sure holidays are a blast at your house. Looks like you have you hat on too tight mate! Chill out! Link to comment
Jomarac5 Posted August 27, 2003 Author Share Posted August 27, 2003 Mushtang, where does this come from? This whole current discussion has been on topic. There was a mention of personal/professional opinion, but it too, was directly related to the discussion. Looks to me, that aside from a few initial off topic posts, yours is the only one that is off topic since the discussion got "serious". For your information, the entire purpose of this discussion is to make people aware of the terms and conditions. Wake up man. quote: RobertM wrote:What about if I put my terms and conditions under all the photos I upload on how they can / cannot be used? Then there's no confusion about who's stealing, ummm, I mean using, my photos. That's a very good question. It makes me wonder about another aspect -- When I signed up on the website, it was a completely different Terms Of Use that I agreed to. So what I want to know is this: Are the images that have been previously uploaded by users of the site, prior to the new Terms Of Agreement, exempt from the conditions of the new Terms of Agreement? On what date was this new agreement posted on the site? Another interesting fact to consider is that when you upload a photo through your profile page or through a cache log, you're not asked to agree to any terms or conditions -- you just upload the image. The site does, however require, when submitting a cache for approval, that you to select a checkbox to indicate that you have read and agree to the Terms Of Use Agreement. I suppose that at the time of selecting the box and submitting the cache, you'd be legally obligated to the new terms. If someone has been a member prior to the new agreement, and doesn't place a new cache but does upload photos to logs, it's quite conceivable that they may never become aware of the new terms. One more aspect that I think is very important (probably *the most* important to me personally) is that I've uploaded images to this site for the sole purpose of sharing them with other cachers and members of the general public who may have an in interest in caching. I do this very selflessly for the benefit of others -- no strings attached -- and the images clearly remain my personal property. My hope is that my photos will be viewed by others for the purpose of enhancing the cache experience. I feel somewhat betrayed by the language that is in the new agreement -- it's not allowing me to share those photographic moments with fellow cachers without my giving up some of the rights to that property. Doesn't seem necessary to me. ----- For those of you who are wondering what the differences are between the old and the new site conditions, you may find this interesting; The previous geocaching.com disclaimer <snip> Geocaching Disclaimer Geocaching.com is owned and operated by Grounded Inc. Information in the Geocaching.com database is updated regularly. Neither Grounded Inc., nor any agency, officer, or employee of Grounded Inc. warrants the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of any information and shall not be liable for any losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy, reliability, or timeliness of such information. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of this information, portions may be incorrect or not current. Any person or entity that relies on information obtained from Geocaching.com does so at his or her own risk. Geocaching, hiking, backpacking and other outdoor activities involve risk to both persons and property. There are many variables including, but not limited to, weather, fitness level, terrain features and outdoor experience, that must be considered prior to seeking or placing a Cache. Be prepared for your journey and be sure to check the current weather and conditions before heading outdoors. Always exercise common sense and caution. In no way shall Grounded Inc. nor any agency, officer, or employee of Grounded Inc., be liable for any direct, indirect, punitive, or consequential damages arising out of, or in any way connected with the use of this website or use of the information contained within. Cache seekers assume all risks involved in seeking a cache. This website is for personal and non-commercial use. You may not modify, copy, excerpt, distribute, transmit, publish, license, create derivative works from, or sell any information, or services obtained from this website. Other products and companies referred to herein are trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective companies or mark holders. Grounded Inc. reserves the right to change the terms, conditions, and notices under which this website is offered. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2000 Grounded Inc. </snip> ***** [This message was edited by Jomarac5 on August 28, 2003 at 12:07 AM.] Link to comment
+sept1c_tank Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 Rothstafari...where are you when we need you?! ==============="If it feels good...do it"================ **(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")** . Link to comment
mckee Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by seneca: Its not just being sued that you have to worry about. As discussed on the other thread, are you aware that, pursuant to the Groundspeak Terms and Conditions, once you submit material to this site, over which you own the copyright, (including photographs), you will have permanently lost the legal ability to grant any other party an exclusive license to use it? For 99% of the people out there, it really doesn't matter. They aren't going to capture a picture that will storm the art world with it's stunning beauty, amazing originality and power to touch the soul. However, for the few things that may pop up, the artist/author should already know better. We're on a diary site that was carefully chosen for it's "hands-off" policy regarding copyright. As it is stated, only the author has control over use, the diary has permission to feature it online, but that's as far as they lay any claim to it. My original post contained a lot of "typically" and "most" regarding content for terms and use of a forum. If you post something you feel is art, it's your "loss." That's not going to happen with the typical Forum User. -------------------- You have the right to defend yourself, even when geocaching! Link to comment
+seneca Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by mckee:For 99% of the people out there, it really doesn't matter. They aren't going to capture a picture that will storm the art world with it's stunning beauty, amazing originality and power to touch the soul. However, for the few things that may pop up, the artist/author should already know better. Well said, McKee. I admit, the issue I raised really is a Tempest in a Teapot. It will however bother some conceited amateur photographers who like to believe their family snapshots might one day be worth something. The "Terms and Conditions" might save us from having to look at their "prized" pictures. I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. Link to comment
mckee Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 quote:Originally posted by Jomarac5:She's mentioned in this thread that she's a lawyer and she's giving an opinion on legal language here that is read by others reading this thread that is, perhaps not good advice, personally, or professionally. ***** Irrelevant. She can tell people to stick their heads in jet engines, but if they aren't paying her as a lawyer for that information, it doesn't matter. Just try suing a lawyer for bad legal advice he gave you for free. My ex-wife's family tried this regarding an inheritance and they learned the hard way. If there was no money passed, no formal agreement, any advice given by a lawyer isn't considered "legal advice." -------------------- You have the right to defend yourself, even when geocaching! Link to comment
Recommended Posts