Posting Scans Of The Physical Log

[+Renegade Knight]

Every cache has a story. The entire story is the sum of the adventures had while searching for the cache. Not all stories will be told but some will.

 

Do you think it's a good idea to post scans of the physical log when you archive the cache or just swap logs because the old one is full?

 

Some have said they don't want their words taken, and yet they left them for us all to read. Is it stealing to post the log associated with the cache? Does it have to be a scanned so you can see the handwriting (my preference) or can you transcribe the words if you don't have a scanner?

Edited March 18, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+Lone Duck]

Oh! You're talking about the log book in the cache. It the cache owner's property to do with as he wants. Let your conscience be your guide.

[+geckoee]

Personally, I think there is a difference is community from the people that visit the cache site and read the log, to the people that visit the cache page and read the logs. I click though cache pages that are no where near me if someone mentions them in the forums, and it strikes my fancy.

 

I think it would be reasonably assumed, by the people writing in the physical logbook, that it will be read by only those that visit the site, and not a different group. Personally I would not care if my scribbles on a logbook were scanned for the world to see. I would even enjoy reading logs from around the world. However, I can see how some may be offended by this.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

They wrote it, you can post it. It's your right as a cache owner.

[+wildearth2001]

They wrote it, you can post it. It's your right as a cache owner.

Exactly!

 

As for scanning/transcribing: do both if possible somtimes scans are hard to read

[+Geofool]

I don't see a problem with doing this. Of course, there's always one in the bunch. I've seen this done before. Not much difference than posting the pictures from a cache camera. Or is it?

[+Geofool]

Here is a nice job done with a scanned log book.

[+Bloencustoms]

I couldn't say either way. As a cache owner, I never felt the need to post the contents of physical logs online. I suppose I always looked at reading it as a privilege earned by actually visiting the cache site. Still, the cache does belong to the owner. But do the contents of the cache belong to the owner as well? At first glance, the obvious answer is yes. But when you consider TB's it gets more complicated. What would you do if someone (hypothetically, and extremely unlikely) copyrighted their physical logs?

 

I think it's fine if you make a note of your intention to publish the contents in the cache description. That way, there will be something to fall back on in the event someone takes issue with their physical log being posted online.

 

RK, you have come up with some great topics lately. I haven't felt the desire to post this much in weeks.

[+Genius Loci]

Yes, posting scans of the old logbook is a GREAT idea, and some of us really do appreciate it. My thanks to the cache owners who abide by this courteous practice!

 

The first time I ran across this was well over a year ago, on one of cachew nut's caches (the notorious 'Unfrozen Caveman Geocacher' of these forums). When the log books for a couple of his older caches filled up, he replaced the old books with a fresh ones, scanned the old books, and posted the scans of the old logbook pages on his cache description pages.

 

I was a bit embarrassed, as he actually posted a scan of my physical logbook entry before I (ahem) got around to logging the cache online!

 

Anyway, to me, the logbook is the most important thing in a cache. I love seeing the handwritten, stamped, or stickered entries in an actual book, and scans are the next best thing.

 

I know it's a lot of extra work for the cache owner... so those who take the time and trouble to do so need to hear that we DO appreciate it (are you reading this cachew nut)?

 

Put those scans up online, boys! WE LOVE 'EM!

[+geckoee]

...Not much difference than posting the pictures from a cache camera. Or is it?

I'd argue that it is different. It's pretty common to post cache camera pictures on line. How else are the people that took them ever going to see them?

 

Just for the record, I log my finds on line as well as in the physical. (and the DNF's too.)

[bug and snake]

It's a great idea - dunno how practical though. I am thinking about how many people would be willing to wait to download a page filled with graphics. It can be a slow process for those not on wideband. There is also the question of storage space on the server and bandwidth too. But d^#n it, I STILL like the idea.

[+Renegade Knight]

It's a great idea - dunno how practical though. I am thinking about how many people would be willing to wait to download a page filled with graphics. It can be a slow process for those not on wideband. There is also the question of storage space on the server and bandwidth too. But d^#n it, I STILL like the idea.

You can upload pics so that you have to click on them to load them. It's low bandwith friendly unless you click first. Of course you can also arrange for them to load automaticly and then your point is very germain.

[+SBPhishy]

I really like seeing scanned pictures of real logs. It's much more "real" then just reading the log online. When you read the physical log, it contains the thoughts and feelings of the cacher, right when they found the cache. You can see the dirt on the page, the watermarks, the sloppy handwriting (at least in my case!)

 

I say go for it. Someday, I hope to scan the logs in my caches.

[+SylvrStorm]

What would you do if someone (hypothetically, and extremely unlikely) copyrighted their physical logs?

Actually, any original writing is legally protected by copyright law as soon as it's fixed in a tangible medium (i.e. written down on paper or stored to a computer disk). You don't have to register it with the copyright office to own the copyright. This only applies to original "creative" work, so a "TNLN, Thanks" log entry would not be protected, but those aren't the ones that would be interesting to post online anyway.

 

What this means is that legally, the contents of a log book are owned separately by each contributor, not the cache owner. And technically, scanning or transcribing the contents and posting it on the internet without the original writers' permission would be considered theft.

 

However, Bloencustoms makes a good point:

I think it's fine if you make a note of your intention to publish the contents in the cache description. That way, there will be something to fall back on in the event someone takes issue with their physical log being posted online.

This would indeed be the best choice. If you make a brief note on the log book (wouldn't hurt to have it on the cache page too) of your intention to scan or transcribe the contents and post it online, then simply by writing in the log book the writer is granting permission for you to "publish" their words. They still own the copyright, but have granted you the right to publish. Problem solved.

 

I do think it's kind of a cool idea. Personally, I wouldn't care if anyone posted my log book entries, as I write pretty much the same thing in my online logs anyway.

 

SylvrStorm

[+The Leprechauns]

I don't have a problem with scanning and posting the logs. When I write in a logbook, I've "published" it, albeit for a very small audience. If it's re-published online, it's not like 5,000 people are going to read it. Probably other cachers in my area and a few curious surfers. It's not like I'm leaving my cellphone number and home address in the logbooks or anything.

 

But that does bring up one caution: while I try never to post outright spoilers in my online log, I will very often write in the cache logbook about things that only other finders would appreciate. Examples: "I searched for 20 minutes on the ground before looking up and seeing the cache hanging in the air! Great hide!" "I walked right past the small rocks and instead searched the nearby tree stumps... good misdirect." If these outright spoilers are posted on the cache page when a logbook is scanned, I'd include a big warning next to the link for the images. As a cache owner I would likely not post the old logbooks for my puzzle or multicaches, or for those that are well-hidden or involve some sort of a "twist" that gets talked about in the paper logbook.

[+RJFerret]

As long as it's declared--fine. Otherwise, I'll sue for my percentage of the GC.com revenue generated by my log being made available online (unless you pay me first).

 

(Yes, of course I'm exaggerating...duh... But the point remains.) Remember this is a commercial site after all!

 

Think about it this way, imagine a mega-cacher copying physical log entries and compiling a book that makes thousands...

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

[+Sparky-Watts]

I could go both ways on this, but lean towards, "Yes, post them". Part one: I feel like the logs I leave are a gift, of sorts, to those who actually make the effort to find the cache. Part two: There are folks that will never find the caches I've found to read my logs, so post them to share with the world.

 

2nd waffle answer of the day....I'm on a roll!

[+Polgara]

Edit: Deleted.

 

Some people just don't get it, and most never will. Not worth contributing to discussion.

Edited March 19, 2004 by Ce'Nedra

[ju66l3r]

Anything posted to this website, such as scans of a cache hider's logbook are still the property of the cache hider. Any book derived from these things would be subject to a lawsuit (unless the book was created by Groundspeak whom we all give total license to our material by having uploaded it).

 

Logbooks aren't your personal diary. If you are concerned with what you write, then start leaving the stickers now and get all the caching in you can, because unlike the rest of us, your paranoia might soon leave you homebound.

 

Welcome to the internet. Everything you say and do unrestrictedly in public (like geocaching) might end up here some day. It's completely amazing to me that people don't really catch on to that at all. This smacks of the same shock that people had when the sig banners with their IP started popping up.

[+Melrose Plant]

But that does bring up one caution:  while I try never to post outright spoilers in my online log, I will very often write in the cache logbook about things that only other finders would appreciate.  Examples: "I searched for 20 minutes on the ground before looking up and seeing the cache hanging in the air! Great hide!" "I walked right past the small rocks and instead searched the nearby tree stumps... good misdirect."  If these outright spoilers are posted on the cache page when a logbook is scanned, I'd include a big warning next to the link for the images.  As a cache owner I would likely not post the old logbooks for my puzzle or multicaches, or for those that are well-hidden or involve some sort of a "twist" that gets talked about in the paper logbook.

This is a very good point which I had not thought of, even though I do the same thing myself. My paper logs tend to be rather short, but often contain spoilers. At least they would be spoilers if published online. In the paper logs, I hope they are just humorous.

 

A good example of this is when I found a cache which was hidden at least seven feet off the ground. Since I am only 5' 6", this made for some interesting manuevering to actually get at the thing. It made for a good paper log entry, but I couldn't very well post that online, could I? My struggles had to remain a secret to all but a very few.

Edited March 18, 2004 by Balboagirl

[+Salvelinus]

My first though was to wonder why you would post a scanned log book. I still can't think of a good reason to do so, but I'm open to the idea that others may feel differently.

 

I would not like to see something I wrote to someone else posted without prior knowledge that it would be exposed to everyone and anyone via the internet. To me...many of my logbook entries are personal thoughts between me, the cache placer, and other finders. They often contain spoilers or other thoughts nobody, except people who have had that same experience, could understand. In contrast, my online logs are written with full understanding that anyone can view them. In such, they are written in a different frame of mind than the physical logbook entry. I also choose whether or not to use a cache camera with the knowledge that it too could end up online.

 

I would be okay with posting log book scans if I knew up front that what I write could be posted. Then I could decide whether to share my thoughs and/or spoilers, or just stamp the book with my really cool brook trout stamp and be on my way

 

Sure...it may be legal to post scanned log books without prior knowledge of the authors, but that dosn't necessarily make it appropriate in every case.

 

Salvelinus

[+Sagefox]

I intended to say "in no-way post a scanned logbook" but after reading these responses I'm back to neutral on it. Initially I saw it as disrespectful to those who have a strong desire for anonymity. But, I admit that I have been influenced by a few constant-commenters whom I perceive to be overly sensitive to the issue and in a very small minority. I suspect that most non-computer loggers could care less about whether the logbook was scanned.

 

I personally don't care if scanned logbooks are posted. I can't foresee having time to read through a scanned log with the possible exception of a cache I was following. All the entertaining stuff is on-line rather than in the logbook due to physical and time constraints.

 

I've got thirty filled logbooks in my drawer and have read every line. There is nothing in them that would make it worth it to the general public for me to take the time needed to scan and post them.

 

Another side issue: If people started filling up my logbooks with long stories thus requiring higher levels of maintenance I'd start archiving caches. On-line is where I want to read about it, as the finds happen, not 3 to 6 months later.