Do you read TERMS AND CONDITIONS?

1.4k · September 2, 2003

quote:
mckee wrote:
As for why GC doesn't clearly state their stance and claimed rights, it's on the page where you click "I Agree" in order gain access to post on the forums. That people don't read it is the fault of the people.

Wrong! The Terms of Use have changed since I agreed to the terms. What people don't know about is not the fault of the people.

*****

1.4k · September 2, 2003

Enough already. Why can we not get answers to the questions at hand?

1. Is there some other use planned for the intellectual property of those who use this site?

2. When did the terms of service (Terms of Use) take effect?

3. Are any pictures/data loaded before the TOS (TOU) grandfathered 'out' of those TOS(TOU)? -- In other words, is the intellectual property that we uploaded prior to the new TOU exempt from the current TOU?

*****

2.3k · September 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
Wrong! The Terms of Use have changed since I agreed to the terms. What people don't know about is not the fault of the people.

*****

Clearly stated in the Terms of Service, for all to read:

Groundspeak may change, suspend, or discontinue any portion of the Site, or any service offered on the Site, at any time, including but not limited to any feature, database, application, or content. Groundspeak may also impose limits on certain features offered on the Site with or without notice.

This has gone to four pages. Let it go, man.

1.4k · September 2, 2003

quote:
Team 360 wrote:
Clearly stated in the Terms of Service, for all to read:...

Let it go, man.

Those aren't the Terms of Service that I agreed to when I joined the site.

When the questions (2 posts above) are answered satisfactorily, I'll let it go.

*****

September 2, 2003

If I were Groundspeak I would have simply answered as follows:

“The provisions of our Terms of Use Contract relating to uploaded material, simply sets out the consideration we require for allowing you to upload material to our site. The document speaks for itself. If you a require any clarification as to the legal implications of these provisions, you will have to consult your own lawyer. If you find this unacceptable, then simply do not upload materials to this site. Thank you for voicing your concerns.”

They have no obligation whatsoever (morally, legally or, in my opinion even from the perspective of good business practice) to provide any other answer than that, and in my opinion, it would be quite inappropriate to do otherwise.

When I read comments such as this:

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
I received a reply from Groundspeak telling me that they cannot answer the three questions because "we are not permitted to interpret the Terms of Use Agreement or specific sections of the Agreement for you". What a croc. Are we expected to actually believe this?(italics added)

and then see further similar comments posted but the same person, I can only conclude that management of this site, have to be the most tolerant I have ever come across, particularly when they have the instant ability to revoke membership.

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

1.4k · September 2, 2003

In a funny way, Seneca, you're a funny guy.

Where's the problem in answering the questions? Why don't people have a right to know if their intellectual propery is going to be used anywhere else? If there is in fact, no other use intended, then why not just say so?

*****

September 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
Where's the problem in answering the questions? *****

The legal term is “representations”. These nasty little things (particularly in writing) can totally screw up the protection offered by an otherwise sound legal agreement, and often in ways that the person making them, could have never imagined.

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

1.4k · September 2, 2003

Sorry Seneca, I don't buy that. Play straight and there's no need for misunderstandings or complicated language.

In the above questions, I have not asked anything that compromises the Terms of Use. I only want to know if Groundspeak intends another purpose for the intellectual property that is collected and if they assume that the current TOU applies to all information collected since we began using the site -- even though the current agreement is not the one that most of us here agreed to.

Why don't you quote and reply to my other two questions? Particularly:

If there is in fact, no other use intended, then why not just say so?

*****

1.4k · September 2, 2003

Seneca, I find it odd that you feel it necessary to reply to my queries that I ask of Groundspeak -- are they not capable of answering questions on their own?

*****

September 2, 2003

quote:
I don't need to give a worst case scenario.

Well, actually, you do if you want to answer my post, but obviously you don't want to answer my post, so that's fine.

By the by, I didn't respond to your post with the intent to launch you into defense mode, I was looking for an example of why you were worried about. Now that you launched off a two paragraph response, however, allow me to retort in kind.

quote:
... the whole point is that the ownership of our (yours as well) intellectual property is being 'taken' from us, and may be unwillingly be used for some other purpose

Uh... what? Is the word 'taken' in apostrophes because you agree that its not actually taken. Everyone who agreed to the TOS agrees that Groundspeak can use the property you speak of. Most of us, apparently, don't care if they do, or are wise enough not to post/upload anything we are worried about being used to the benefit of Groundspeak.

So, the intellectual property is not 'taken' or 'unwillingly used,' its use is approved by agreeing to the TOS. If the TOS said something different when you joined, then that's what applies to you.

quote:
Groundspeak does not have my permission to use my information other than for operating or promoting the site. Nor should they be asking or deceptively be trying to obtain it.

Is that true? Is that what the TOS said when you agreed to it. If so, then move on, you're covered.

quote:
Why is it that you have a difficult time understanding that your property is your own? The intellectual property that they are being less than up-front about telling you their intentions, is being taken from you with the slippery wording of the agreement.

If the 'you' in this sentence is me, then I have no idea why you're asking me this question. I have zero difficulty understanding that my property is my own. Does my post somehow indicate otherwise to you? Or did you launch into a knee-jerk attack because I posted without yelling my support of your indignation?

I do not have a problem with Groudspeak using any piece of tripe I may post on this site. If I accidently post my authentic nude pictures of Brittany Spears, so be it. Use away. I know what I agreed to, and even if I didn't read the TOS like the alleged 65% of others answering the poll, I would like to think I'm smart enough not to post anything on the web I didn't want somebody seeing, liking, and cut and pasting.

quote:
If there is no other planned purpose for taking the rights to our property, then why the need to have unlimited use to our property? Why don't they clearly state that the information will not be used for anything other than the operation and promotion of the site?

These questions almost answers themselves. Although I think this has been answered, the TOS is used to cover the behind of Groundspeak, not to worry about your claims to your intellectual property. The TOS is as broad as it can conceivable be, within reason, to cover Groundspeak's behind, should it end up using something posted on the site for profit.

quote:
Now do you see it?

Do you think you're the only one seeing reason here, and that the rest of us are communists? Or do you understand the other side of the debate?

I understand why you might be incensed at the thought of your art/pictures/posts being used for profit, of which you may or may not share in, but I don't think it will ever happen. Even if it does, 'you' (meaning those who have agree to the particular terms of service you reference) have agree to it. How can you complain when something you have posted/uploaded, which you agreed can be used by Groundspeak, is used by Groundspeak?

I don't think 'I didn't read the TOS' is an acceptable excuse. Unfortunately, a jury may.

Pan

Swallow a live toad first thing in the morning, and chances are that nothing worse will happen to you for the rest of the day. - Unknown

September 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
In the above questions, I have not asked anything that compromises the Terms of Use.

In my opinion you have.

Presumably you want these answers to assist you in deciding whether or not you are going to continue to upload material. If they provide you the answers you want to hear, (ie.” don’t worry, J5, we have no intention or plans of using your materials for any other commercial purpose” or “don’t worry, any materials uploaded before any change in our Terms of Use, will not be affected by the change” ) and as a result of such answers, you decide that the Terms of Use are no longer of such a concern to you, leading you to upload more material, it could very well diminish the legal enforceability of the contract.

LEGAL CMA NOTE: I am only giving what I believe to be a reasonable explanation for Groundspeak’s reluctance to provide you with full answers to your questions. This is not legal advice as I am unqualified to provide legal advice in the areas of law or jurisdictions concerned.

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

September 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
Seneca, I find it odd that you feel it necessary to reply to my queries that I ask of Groundspeak -- are they not capable of answering questions on their own?

*****

I find it odd that you post your questions here, if you are not interested in our input. Very, very odd.

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

1.4k · September 2, 2003

quote:
Seneca wrote:
I find it odd that you post your questions here, if you are not interested in our input. Very, very odd.

Why is this odd? Where's the problem if everyone else sees the answers to these questions? I know that I'm not the only one who would like to hear these answers. You're giving me your opinion on my asking the questions but you are not giving me the answers to the questions that I've asked, nor can you.

*****

September 2, 2003

Is there an instant gremlin (emoticon) for a an exasperated "why do I waste my time" shrug??

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

1.4k · September 2, 2003

quote:
Seneca wrote:
Is there an instant gremlin (emoticon) for a an exasperated "why do I waste my time" shrug??

I've been thinking the same thing lately.

*****

4.8k · September 2, 2003

quote:
posted September 02, 2003 02:35 PM
Enough already. Why can we not get answers to the questions at hand?

1. Is there some other use planned for the intellectual property of those who use this site?

2. When did the terms of service (Terms of Use) take effect?

3. Are any pictures/data loaded before the TOS (TOU) grandfathered 'out' of those TOS(TOU)? -- In other words, is the intellectual property that we uploaded prior to the new TOU exempt from the current TOU?

My PERSONAL opinion based on legal knowledge:

1) They can't tell you, because as Seneca explained, it could back them into a corner.

2) Probably when you accessed the site after it took effect, but they can't tell you, because as Seneca explained, it could back them into a corner.

3) They can't tell you, because as Seneca explained, it could back them into a corner.

Not very satisfactory to you, I know, but I would recommend the same response if I was Groundspeak's lawyer. Sorry, I realize your concerns, but that is the way I see personally it in a legal sense.

quote:
The legal term is “representations”. These nasty little things (particularly in writing) can totally screw up the protection offered by an otherwise sound legal agreement, and often in ways that the person making them, could have never imagined.

This is absolutely correct.

quote:
Seneca, I find it odd that you feel it necessary to reply to my queries that I ask of Groundspeak -- are they not capable of answering questions on their own?

If I was their lawyer, I would tell them

"no you are not, don't answer." Then, it would be left to people responding to forum posts to give their opinions. Apparently that is what happened. Or hire a lawyer if you are really concerned.

quote:
Presumably you want these answers to assist you in deciding whether or not you are going to continue to upload material. If they provide you the answers you want to hear, (ie.” don’t worry, J5, we have no intention or plans of using your materials for any other commercial purpose” or “don’t worry, any materials uploaded before any change in our Terms of Use, will not be affected by the change” ) and as a result of such answers, you decide that the Terms of Use are no longer of such a concern to you, leading you to upload more material, it could very well diminish the legal enforceability of the contract.

To be redundant, I agree.

OK, you know what, this should be clear by now: I agree with why Groundspeak has the TOS that is does. I also see why it bugs people, but I still understand it. In all reality, it just doesn't personally bother me, so I will upload away! If others have problems in the future, don't upload and/or hire a lawyer! As for me, I'm obviously a bad candidate for that (and I couldn't be hired on either side anyway), but others will represent your cause if needed. My question is: Do you really think it will be needed? Oh well good luck if it is....

[This message was edited by carleenp on September 02, 2003 at 10:01 PM.]

3.8k · September 2, 2003

Carleen...Do you have a patent on redundancy?

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

.

4.8k · September 2, 2003

quote:
Carleen...Do you have a patent on redundancy?

Not yet, but maybe I should work on it!

1.4k · September 3, 2003

No offence, caleenp, but I understand exactly what Seneca is saying without your echo. I don't agree with his reasoning, nor do I think it is necessary. Telling us that the images are not going to be used for any other commercial purpose will not diminish the enforceability of any agreement. As I mentioned above, play straight and there's no need for misunderstandings or complicated language.

*****

September 3, 2003

For myself, I am just going to assume that Groundspeak.com/geocaching.com might use any of images or text I have placed on their site somehow and maybe even make lots of money off it and retire to a life of luxury.

Of course they might not, but any case if I don't want them to be able to use an image, I will not upload it. As I see it that is the choice everyone has.

September 3, 2003

I'm wondering who will have the last post on this thread?

************************************************************

"Sometimes you gotta look like an *** to get that cache!"...huntforit

************************************************************

1.7k · September 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Huntforit:
I'm wondering who will have the last post on this thread?

Now you've done it. Unless this thread gets locked, we can count on seeing it again years from now when some newbie posts to say "Now I have the last post! Hahahaha!"

I'd say I'm sorry for being off topic, but we already know I just don't understand. If I understood, I'd agree. That's obvious to any moron.

If you're not a moron, you're forgiven for not seeing how obvious that is.

pirate.cgi.gif

1.4k · September 3, 2003

1. Is there some other use planned for the intellectual property of those who use this site?

2. When did the terms of service (Terms of Use) take effect?

3. Are any pictures/data loaded before the TOS (TOU) grandfathered 'out' of those TOS(TOU)? -- In other words, is the intellectual property that we uploaded prior to the new TOU exempt from the current TOU?

*****

1.3k · September 3, 2003

What's the harm in answering when the new TOS (TOU) went into affect? Is it different than before or is the major difference that you have to 'agree' to it to list caches?

I don't recall seeing it before.

southdeltan

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

1.7k · September 3, 2003

Actually what I'd like to know is what could anyone ever have uploaded that is worth selling.

Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes

On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:

"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --

"Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"

Rudyard Kipling , The Explorer 1898

2.3k · September 3, 2003

1. Is there some other use planned for the intellectual property of those who use this site?_

HAHAHA! "Intellectual" property? In here? Thanks for the laugh!

_2. When did the terms of service (Terms of Use) take effect?_

Well, my guess, and this is only a guess, is that they took effect back when they were posted, right?

_3. Are any pictures/data loaded before the TOS (TOU) grandfathered 'out' of those TOS(TOU)?_ -- In other words, is the intellectual property that we uploaded prior to the new TOU exempt from the current TOU?

NO! All photos will be made readily available for the upcoming "Girls of Geocaching Gone Wild" series.

1.4k · September 3, 2003

quote:
Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking wrote:
Actually what I'd like to know is what could anyone ever have uploaded that is worth selling.

Independently, probably nothing (although there might be the odd exception). Collectively however, a database of photos with cooresponding coordinates can be very, very valuable. There are LOTS of uses for a database showing photos of different geographical locations.

So, is someone from Groundspeak going to address the questions?

*****

September 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
Collectively however, a database of photos with cooresponding coordinates can be very, very valuable. There are LOTS of uses for a database showing photos of different geographical locations.

*****

So. How does that effect you? Ever heard the expression "A dog in the manger" ?

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

1.7k · September 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Jomarac5:
Collectively however, a database of photos with cooresponding coordinates can be very, very valuable. There are LOTS of uses for a database showing photos of different geographical locations.

So a database of coordinates and photos of goofballs holding GPS units in the woods near piles of garbage is somehow useful?

Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes

On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:

"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --

"Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"

Rudyard Kipling , The Explorer 1898

1.4k · September 3, 2003

Well, it is now quite evident that some people just don't get it. And it's pathetically evident that the majority of people don't read the conditions that apply when uploading web based content. Makes me understand the comments that Johnny Depp has made of late.

Seneca -- grow up. "A dog in a manger" -- you're a bit mixed up with its meaning and you could use some clarity if you meant it as an insult, which I assume that you did. I'm convinced that it doesn't matter with you whether you believe in something or not. You just like being an instigator, no matter how stupid it makes you appear.

Mike, are you for real? This is one of the weakest replies that I've had in a forum yet (well, with the exception of Team 360, of course).

Sad really, that people don't get the importance of ownership of property.

Wake up people -- you're intellectual property has value -- don't let someone take it from you.

*****

2.3k · September 3, 2003

Yes, I deleted this because after further thought I did not think it was right to attack J5 on that level. J5 has an opinion, and I have mine.

To answer the original topic of this thread:

No, I don't.

Peace.

[This message was edited by TEAM 360 on September 03, 2003 at 08:25 PM.]

1.7k · September 3, 2003

My name is Gale (Desert Viking). Mike is my partner/husband.

There is such a thing as choosing your battles. Some things are important and worth fighting over. Some things aren't.

This is important to you, I see that. If you don't like the terms of use, then don't upload any of your *intellectual property*. I read the terms of use and don't have any problem with it. Apparently quite a few people don't feel like you do. Please recognize that and stop trying to convert us to your point of view.

Not everything someone says or does is important enough to be *intellectual property*.

Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes

On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:

"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --

"Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"

Rudyard Kipling , The Explorer 1898

1.7k · September 3, 2003

quote:
Wake up people -- you're intellectual property has value -- don't let someone take it from you.

No one is taking it from me. I am agreeing to it in order to use this website. It's not that big a deal.

Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes

On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:

"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --

"Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"

Rudyard Kipling , The Explorer 1898

September 3, 2003

I'm GLAD you're in Canada. Please stay there!!

************************************************************

"Sometimes you gotta look like an *** to get that cache!"...huntforit

************************************************************

1.4k · September 3, 2003

quote:
Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking wrote:
Apparently quite a few people don't feel like you do. Please recognize that and stop trying to convert us to your point of view.

Apparently, from the e-mail that I've received, there are quite a few people who *do* feel about this the same as I do.

Some people *do* understand the importance of intellectual property -- take Groundspeak for instance, if they didn't, there would be no reason for the wording in the Terms of Use Agreement. Just why do *you* think it's worded the way that it is?

*****

September 3, 2003

"Just why do *you* think it's worded the way that it is?"

Better yet...why don't YOU explain why YOU think it's worded the way it is since YOU are SO weirded out about it.

Paranoia may DESTROY ya!!

************************************************************

"Sometimes you gotta look like an *** to get that cache!"...huntforit

************************************************************

1.4k · September 3, 2003

quote:
Huntforit wrote:
"Just why do *you* think it's worded the way that it is?"

I've already said why. Are you not paying attention or are you simply replying with your mindless pearls of wisdom without reading any of this?

*****

September 3, 2003

Paranoia may destroy ya. Please GET HELP!! You'll probably be talking to yourself on this thread shortly. Bye!

************************************************************

"Sometimes you gotta look like an *** to get that cache!"...huntforit

************************************************************

1.4k · September 3, 2003

quote:
Huntforit wrote:
Bye!

About time. See ya later alligator.

*****

4.5k · September 3, 2003

It seems to me that the TOS protects Groundspeak and Geocaching from you suing them for use of anything you post including logs as well as pictures. It also places them in a stronger position against any current or future competitors who "deep minie" data from this web site for their own commercial use.

The TOS helps Groundspeak place a protective cover around everything related to geocaching to consolidate their position. Your individual picture or post means nothing. It's the total sum of everything that's posted that is important to Groundspeak.

They are in business, you know.

Alan

2.5k · September 3, 2003

I've been following this thread a bit and found it interesting. Here's some things I'd like to offer.

Frankly I haven't read the terms myself, and based on the debate going on in here, I can honestly say that I don't necessarily understand them either.

When I signed up here, there were no terms to agree to, except for logo usage. You can still see what the site looked like by visiting the wayback machine at archive.org

Apparently, the "clicking to agree" seems to only be on the page when you list a cache, I don't see any other place asking you to click to agree, so unless you hid a cache recently, you probably did not click, so you didn't agree. Besides even if you did, you certainly were quite vocal in the forums that you don't agree, so if you clicked by accident, you have cetainly made your point that it wasn't your intention to agree.

When my turn comes to hide another cache, I will read the agreement if I have to click. So I guess to answer your original question about if people read the terms of agreement, yeah I read them. That doesn't mean that I understand them though. Whether I understand them or not, I probably will click if I want my hide to appear on the site.

Now, from what I read in the forums, I do understand some of it. The part I understand is that Groundspeak can make money from my pictures. So, it's up to me to decide whether to upload pictures or not. I've probably uploaded my share of good and not so good pictures, I doubt they are worth much.

Pictures of me certainly wouldn't make anyone rich, I'd probably be flattered if they did.

I would not want anyone making money from pictures of my kids, even if I didn't upload them, and this is the only area that I would feel worthy of a legal fight. However, since I wouldn't want anyone to make money from them, that's why I wouldn't upload them. I'm pretty sure where minors are involved, there are different rules.

If you are a minor, then you probably aren't bound by the terms of the agreement.

Most importantly above anything else, you don't want to be involved in a legal fight. It will drain you and your money, and you probably won't get the satisfaction you were looking for anyway, so if there is a picture you are concerned with, you are probably better off just asking Groundspeak to delete it for you and offer to pay them for the their time in doing so. I'm sure they are reasonable and would understand. Nobody is trying to screw anybody, and I can't recall anyone getting screwed because of this site.

So there it is, I'm pretty sure the terms speak for themselves, whatever they happen to be saying. You seem pretty smart, if I could figure this much out, I'm sure you could too.

By the way, there aren't really five of you, are there?

1.4k · September 3, 2003

cachew nut, I do very much understand what you are saying, and you've said it quite well.

I don't agree with the Terms of Use agreement -- and I am not alone.

People need to be less tolerant of language that they don't understand -- they *should* ask questions if they don't understand something. And when they do ask, they *should* be given clarification by the owner of the agreement. It needs to be understood that intellectual property has value, whether that value is a million bucks or a tenth of a cent is irrelevant -- it's property. It belongs to YOU. To blindly sign over the rights to that property is ludicrious, yet it happens frequently. Even more ludicrous is that many people do so without even giving any consideration to the terms they are agreeing to. Companies know this and exploit it. I still believe that Groundspeak should give us the answers that have been presented. It would garner a great deal of respect if they did so.

It is my hope that at least some of those who never read the terms of websites will do so now. For those who refuse to understand the ownership and value of your intellectual properties, shame on you -- if one day, you see a photo of yours somewhere on the web where someone else is making money from it, you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

Thanks cachew nut, for your reply.

*****

1.4k · September 3, 2003

Dr. T. Misguided here:

I regret to announce that THE HORSE HAS DIED. Please cease and desist all further attempts to beat it into submission.

On a more serious note, to everyone following this thread:

I honestly think all sides of this issue have been explored pretty well. No further debate is necessary. Please let this thread die a natural death by refraining from any further posts.

___________________________________________________________

Don't mind us, we're just looking for tupperware in this bush.

3.8k · September 4, 2003

quote:
"...all sides of this issue have been explored pretty well..."

Actually, I'm not sure they have.

Who owns the photo (or intellectual material) if a third party chooses to glean material from a source (website) outside of Groundspeak and post it here?

==============="If it feels good...do it"================

**(the other 9 out of 10 voices in my head say: "Don't do it.")**

.

[This message was edited by sept1c_tank on September 04, 2003 at 01:49 AM.]

1.3k · September 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by sept1c_tank:

quote:
"...all sides of this issue have been explored pretty well..."

Actually, I'm not sure they have.

Who owns the photo (or intellectual material) if a _third_ party chooses to glean material from a source (website) outside of Groundspeak and post it here?

Agreed.

What about pictures of minors?

What about pictures minors upload?

What about log entries or posts by minors?

What about users under 13? (I think there are even more specialized laws for very young internet users but I may be wrong).

I don't recall seeing a disclaimer but that doesn't mean it's not there.

BTW - please don't take my participation as knocking on the site owners and admin. I do think that 95% of the time they do an outstanding job - and that's a much higher percentage than you can say about a lot of places. I just hope that by participating it will point out some areas of confusion so they can be clarified. If there is a problem - you can't fix it if you don't know about it.

sd

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

1.4k · September 4, 2003

I understand what you are saying Jomarac. I guess, unless you hope to ultimately get the terms removed/retermed, there's not much that can be done outside of abstaining from posting images and/or text.

I think all the major points have been covered.

-Most people don't read the TOS, but those who would care if their text/images were being sold certainly would.

-People retain ownership of the content they submit but grant a license for use of the content.

Maybe I'm missing your goal with this thread. What are you trying to accomplish? It's been talked to death now. I think even the people who disagree with you on the principle of the matter understand your point about TOS and what it means for the content submitted here.

Ultimately we all agree on the facts. You seem to be concerned about the implications of the TOS as it stands. To me, you only have two recourses, which I outlined just above. Abstain from posting content or work to get the TOS changed.

3rd party use of images/content posted here is not really an aspect of the TOS discussion from my POV. It's a seperate issue. But to comment on it... you've granted Groundspeak a license to use the content. Not Joe Shirt Shop a license to print and market your images for their profit. Since this kind of theft is not limited to postings you make on Groundspeak, I think preventing this kind of theft is the responsibility of the content owner and not the web presence provider. Geocities isn't going to help you out if someone steals a graphic from your free home page. Groundspeak's not going to either, it's not really their responsibility.

Back to TOS, you'll find VERY similar TOS on nearly every content hosting site out there that hosts information for free. Geocities is a great example. Go read their TOS.

This is NBD. No Big Deal. Everyone knows the facts and I believe understands the options available to them. It's up to each person to decide how they will live within the TOS that Groundspeak has laid out.

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Assimilating golf balls - one geocache at a time.

September 4, 2003

September 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by southdeltan:

quote:
Originally posted by sept1c_tank:

quote:
"...all sides of this issue have been explored pretty well..."

Actually, I'm not sure they have.

Who owns the photo (or intellectual material) if a _third_ party chooses to glean material from a source (website) outside of Groundspeak and post it here?

Agreed.

What about pictures of minors?

What about pictures minors upload?

What about log entries or posts by minors?

What about users under 13? (I think there are even more specialized laws for very young internet users but I may be wrong).

I don't recall seeing a disclaimer but that doesn't mean it's not there.

.... I just hope that by participating it will point out some areas of confusion so they can be clarified. If there is a problem - you can't fix it if you don't know about it.

If you want clarification, you will only get it by obtaining a legal opinion from an attorney who acts in the area of copyright law, qualified in the appropriate jurisdiction. You can certainly raise your concerns to Groundspeak (as has already been amply done by those few people who actually have concerns), but you will not get any "clarification" of the Terms and Conditions contract. From their perspective (and for their protection) they must take the position that the document speaks for itself. That it the way it will remain unless and until they decide to change it.

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

1.4k · September 4, 2003

quote:
trippy1976 wrote:
Maybe I'm missing your goal with this thread. What are you trying to accomplish?

To get people to understand that they *need* to read the terms of use agreements at this site and other sites. Hopefully, this has succeeded to some degree.

quote:
trippy1976 wrote:
...you've granted Groundspeak a license to use the content. Not Joe Shirt Shop a license to print and market your images for their profit.

Actually, you've given Groundspeak the authorization to sell, rent, or give your property to *anyone* that they wish. So, in fact, Joes Shirt Shop could obtain the rights to your property.

quote:
Seneca wrote:
If you want clarification, you will only get it by obtaining a legal opinion from an attorney who acts in the area of copyright law, qualified in the appropriate jurisdiction.

Actually, not all the questions raised can be answered by an outside attorney.

1. Is there some other use planned for the intellectual property of those who use this site?

2. When did the terms of service (Terms of Use) take effect?

3. Are any pictures/data loaded before the TOS (TOU) grandfathered 'out' of those TOS(TOU)? -- In other words, is the intellectual property that we uploaded prior to the new TOU exempt from the current TOU?

*****

September 4, 2003

Originally posted by Team Misguided:
Dr. T. Misguided here:

I regret to announce that _THE HORSE HAS DIED_. Please cease and desist all further attempts to beat it into submission.

_______________________________________________

ARRRRRR!!!! Turning the horse to dust now.

Do you read TERMS AND CONDITIONS?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment