| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/04/2002 11:29:15 PM · #26 |
| also in the faq it points to the terms to explain what actions are punishable. in the terms it doesnt actually say what will result in suspension, disqualification, etc. |
|
|
|
12/04/2002 11:42:12 PM · #27 |
I need to point out that there in fact two terms of use documents, one for users, and another for members; the differences between them due to the legalese required for when money is involved.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2002 01:03:18 AM · #28 |
In terms of the clause (5) that is most under discussion - granting pretty open and extensive rights over our images and materials and info posted on the site to the site owners:
It's been suggested that this is to cover the eventual selling of prints facility.
Since not all users will use that facility why not make that clause of the agreement one that is written specifically for that part of the site and signed by users as and when they decide to sell/ buy prints?
And revert to a more obvious one for the main agreement which refers only to granting DPC full use of our info/ media on this site only?
Although I trust you both (D&L) not to be using our stuff for other than the reasons here - that is not a good reason to sign a legal agreement that allows you to do so...
Scenario - you're offered mega mega bucks to sell the business and site on - and the new owners decide to market and sell a DPC calendar for profit - site users would have no leg to stand on to fight this when their images were included. I realise this particular scenario is unlikely with our low-res images but it's just an example.
I am not saying this is likely, but that is the kind of reason that this single clause is one which I was less happy to agree to.
Note that, like Lisa, I did agree to it, because of the trust I have in Drew and Langdon. And because I couldn't get back in otherwise.
But I do feel uncomfortable about it...
Kavey
|
|
|
|
12/05/2002 03:43:32 AM · #29 |
Ive no problems with Drew and Langdons intentions for the click-trough, but I am a little concerned about one or two clauses being overly broad.
- I'm totally with them gaining full usage rights to anything I post here.
- I'm a little unclear as to whether they gain rights to the original RAW image, or just the 640x480 jpegs posted here.
- I'm not with them being able to sell my personal details on to 3rd parties. Im pretty spam proof, and selling CC numbers is covered by laws superceeding contracts, its my age Im worried about ;->
- I'm really not hip with my personal details being listed as a saleable asset. This may also be a liability for the site itself, as they may become a target for the kind of direct marketing nasties that break little companies to get at assets like those.
But I really do understand why they have to protect themselves first, and us second. There are some very unpleasant people out there and alot of them use the law to create misery. |
|
|
|
12/05/2002 05:41:37 AM · #30 |
Any software I've installed in the last 20 years has had "agreements" that would give whoever sold it to me the right to my first born... Basically, these agreements boil down to this :
1 ~ If I sell you a cup of coffee and you spill it in your lap, I don't owe you a new pair of pants or $10 million for pain and suffering.
2 ~ If I sell you a cup of coffee and you throw it in someones face, YOU go to jail... Not me... And I don't owe your victim $10 million for pain and suffering.
3 ~ If I sell you a cup of coffee and you say "Yum, that's good coffee", I can tell someone else that you liked it and I don't have to pay you $10 million to do it.
The point about retaining rights is a bit overblown here. If I submit a shot that Drew and Langdon use part of in a logo design or a tee-shirt or whatever, this license thing says they don't owe me $10 million to do it. Although it doesn't say they have to ask my permission to do it, I assume they would. I trust them.
I sold a friend of mine (a good friend) some trading cards a while back. He's paying them off over time. We wrote up a contract and signed it. Anyone that lets money change hands, even between friends and doesn't spell stuff out in writing is a fool. More importantly, they are CERTAIN to lose friends!
I will suggest 2 things... The first is advice I give my daughter when she freaks out about a dropped Cherrio... "Take a deep breath... You'll feel better"... The second is to anyone that is really worried about Terms of Use agreements... Read (if you can find them) the ToU for whatever operating system you are using on your computer. Prepare to be shocked :) The only thing that Drew and Langdon did that brought on this weirdness is to put the ToU up front where we all actually had to read it. Virtually any semi-professionally maintained web site has the same agreement, but you need to follow a fine-printed link from the bottom of the home page to ever see it.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2002 06:07:44 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by myqyl:
Any software I've installed in the last 20 years has had "agreements" that would give whoever sold it to me the right to my first born... Basically, these agreements boil down to this :
1 ~ If I sell you a cup of coffee and you spill it in your lap, I don't owe you a new pair of pants or $10 million for pain and suffering.
2 ~ If I sell you a cup of coffee and you throw it in someones face, YOU go to jail... Not me... And I don't owe your victim $10 million for pain and suffering.
3 ~ If I sell you a cup of coffee and you say "Yum, that's good coffee", I can tell someone else that you liked it and I don't have to pay you $10 million to do it.
The point about retaining rights is a bit overblown here. If I submit a shot that Drew and Langdon use part of in a logo design or a tee-shirt or whatever, this license thing says they don't owe me $10 million to do it. Although it doesn't say they have to ask my permission to do it, I assume they would. I trust them.
I sold a friend of mine (a good friend) some trading cards a while back. He's paying them off over time. We wrote up a contract and signed it. Anyone that lets money change hands, even between friends and doesn't spell stuff out in writing is a fool. More importantly, they are CERTAIN to lose friends!
I will suggest 2 things... The first is advice I give my daughter when she freaks out about a dropped Cherrio... "Take a deep breath... You'll feel better"... The second is to anyone that is really worried about Terms of Use agreements... Read (if you can find them) the ToU for whatever operating system you are using on your computer. Prepare to be shocked :) The only thing that Drew and Langdon did that brought on this weirdness is to put the ToU up front where we all actually had to read it. Virtually any semi-professionally maintained web site has the same agreement, but you need to follow a fine-printed link from the bottom of the home page to ever see it. |
I second this emotion! Well said myqyl. I like the agreement up front as a click thru and not hidden back in the html dungeons. Drew and Langdon have to CYA (or CTheirA's) or they couldn't have the site as it is today and for the future things to come. Change always makes people uncomfortable. I believe this will blow over after a short while and people will realize what's done has to be done. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2002 08:44:08 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by lisae:
How about putting up a version in plain language, stating what your intentions are as the admins of the site, and link to the full version with all its jargon for anyone who wants to read the whole thing? |
I could see the problem with that being that if it ever did get challenged in a court, then the 'plain-text' could be used to weaken/ invalidate/ change the legalise version. There is a reason that the fairly formal versions are used by lawyers, because (weasily or not) they are trying to not introduce the ambiguity and opportunities for differing interpretation that are much more common in a 'plain-text' version. |
|
|
|
12/05/2002 08:50:47 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
Here's what I get out of section #5...
(here is a situation where it might aply)
If ever DPChallenge were featured in a magazine, or on TV, and showed part of the web site, and say your image was on the front page, they don't have to pay you, AND this even gives them permission to give you credit for your work, by saying that they can use your info in a situation like that.
Ok, here is another example. Remember on the old DPC, at the top of the page, it used random images from past challenges (I remember the stop sign specifically). What happened if one of those people said..."hey, you're using my photo in an advertisement, and you need to pay me for every time that my image showed up on your web site".
DPC would be sued, they could lose (because there was no disclaimer that that COULD happen), and we would not have our DPC anymore.
Well, frankly, I don't want to ever lose DPC, so Drew and Lang do what ever you have to do to cover your ass, cause there is ALWAYS going to be one jerk that is going to look for a way to screw you over for a few bucks.
~Heather~ |
Hmm - how to put this. I trust the guys who currently run this site to not try and screw us over. I also realise that right now, we only upload a 640x480 size image that isn't worth using for print/ reproduction purposes.
The problem I have with granting license beyond some loosely defined 'advertising and publicity' clause is that hypothetically:
Someone submits a great picture - talking truely landmark - worth much money. Perhaps the flag raising at ground zero type of shot.
Perhaps the site has got larger/ isn't owned by Drew,Langdon any more as they've sold up and taken the richly deserved retirement at 25 that I'm sure they'd like.
The new owners decide to sell lots of copies from the archive. We are still bound by these contracts, by the current wording.
Or say someone here goes on to be a successful and famous photographer - still their early work is bound by these use licenses. A similar fight is going on right now with the National Geographic, over reproduction of their archive. Now in some ways I'd love if all this came to pass :) but it does concern me a bit with the current wording. Like I say, I trust you guys now, but down the road it would be good if this was cleared up. Discussion of the National Geographic issue
I think the comment that suggested that we should maybe remove this clause from the member agreement and have an additional optional agreement for those who wish to grant rights for prints/ resale etc might be more resonable ? I'm sure this can all get worked out - I just hope it doesn't cost you guys too much in legal fees...
Message edited by author 2002-12-05 13:54:29. |
|
|
|
12/05/2002 09:29:20 AM · #34 |
Just gotta say that it's a shame that in this day and age that people like Drew & Langston have to pay a lawyer to come up with all this crap, but it is indeed a necessary evil for them. I'd hate to think that anyone would believe for a moment that they're "out to get" anyone, after the incredible amount of effort they've put into this venture.
If I were in their shoes, after all the little bug clean-ups, criticisms, blah blah blah, I'd be calling directory assistance to see whether Dr. Kervorkian is accepting calls from his cell... (hang in there, guys!) |
|
|
|
12/05/2002 12:52:14 PM · #35 |
I think Drew and Langston have done a wonderful job and they have every right to make sure they and the site are protected as much as possible. Anyone not feeling secure with the agreement clauses don't have to join in. Drew and Langston I think have proved their sincerity.
Message edited by author 2002-12-05 17:57:19.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2002 12:55:45 PM · #36 |
I don't think anyone here for a MOMENT thinks Drew or Langdon are out to get anyone.
Nor is it really fair to dismiss peoples concerns by throwing out a remark that implies that anyone who has such concerns is just someone who is uncomfortable with change.
I fully see the need that D&L have to protect their hard work and site, and have no argument with that AT ALL.
However I do feel that the concerns about section 5 are legitimate given that the agreement doesn't just cover us now, this week, this month, for the following year, but covers what we submit here for however long the site exists and, as I have said above, even D&L don't know what the future will bring!
Message edited by author 2002-12-05 17:56:11.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2002 01:14:01 PM · #37 |
Re the law disclaimers:
There are other countries that ban "nudity" automatically as pornography and you could get charged for viewing it. I don't think the Muslim countries would like it much either if someone were to depict Muhammad in one of the entries as a schizophrenic pedophile (and would be quite illegal and could carry the death penalty in some cases).
Drew is doing the right thing. It's so easy now to sue someone in the US. Even with the clauses he's NOT immuned from being sued, but it's better than NOT having the clauses. (i.e. someone can argue they agree to the clauses under "duress" and hence the agreement is voided and if it's proven in court, then yeah they can sue).
Originally posted by hbunch7187:
I read it ONLY because I'm a moderator, and felt that it was full of information that I should know in order to fully help out here on the site. Normally I would have skipped right over it. lol. But Basically, all it says, is follow the rules, don't be a jerk, if you're a paid member, and are a jerk, then you'll lose your membership with no refund. If you're under 13 years old, don't put your personal info on here, or it will be removed. Don't be rasist, sexist, religionest, or anything else 'ist' or you'll be removed. No sexual discussions unless related to art. No providing other people's 'offline' contact information. It also says that anyone using 'tools' to hinder or disrupt the normal flow of the site, such as something to overrun the web site with non existant users, will be removed. It says that if for any reason the police or FBI want your information, DPC will be happy to give it to them in the event of an emergency.
It also says, that if for some reason it's illegal in your counrty to access DPC (I'm sure it could happen, but pretty darn sure it's not illegal anywhere) that DPC is not responsible if you break that law.
Basicall, it says don't be stupid and don't break any laws, and don't conduct yourself in a manner that is rude, crude, perverse, or illegal. I don't see why anyone would have a problem agreeing to that.
The reason they have to put all that in there, is if we get some kiddie porn bunghole on here, and he's a paid member, we can kick him outta here with no questions asked.
I like those rules. |
|
|
|
|
12/05/2002 03:36:51 PM · #38 |
I have some serious problems with clause 5 (even though I have signed and joined already.) Again, as others have said, it is nothing whatsoever to do with current management, whom I think we all trust.
I don't know why it should be so hard to lawyer some phrases that will work for both sides. Other sites do it, I'm sure. Some clause could easily be added that restricts clause 5 to use on this site only.
It is certainly incumbent on management, I believe, to note the number of times this has been raised as an issue, and to do deal with it, both as policy and as an act of good faith, in favour of the members.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2002 03:39:35 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Jak:
It is certainly incumbent on management, I believe, to note the number of times this has been raised as an issue, and to do deal with it, both as policy and as an act of good faith, in favour of the members. |
They plan to address this (and any other issues) as soon as their lawyer returns from vacation. |
|
|
|
12/05/2002 06:05:26 PM · #40 |
I REALLY wish people would stop acting as though anyone here has suggested the agreement isn't needed or is a bad thing. I didn't suggest that at all. I listed the points that Puppet10 objected to in order to show why he doesn't want to continue with the site, but he didn't think an agreement was unnecessary, and neither do I.
From my point of view, it is VERY IMPORTANT for creatives to understand issues surrounding the IP of their work. That was my only concern. I mentioned the agreement that students have to sign at my school before doing group work on 3d games, etc. Our school organised 2 meetings with all the students. At the first meeting their lawyer read through the whole agreement and explained each clause. At the second meeting, because some questions were raised, the CEO of the school spent 3 hours explaining everything to do with IP and how deals are cut and the way things are developed and distributed, whether it be books, CDs, movies, TV series, games, etc., so he could justify the 10% over 7 years attitude our school was taking.
To say that it's impossible to explain what an agreement means when people are signing a document that involves their IP rights to their own creative work is a big cop out, in my opinion. I think having an agreement is fine. I just didn't like not knowing what I was signing because the legalese is beyond me. Now that others have looked at some of the clauses and raised concerns, I think I was right to be a little bit worried. NOT because I don't trust Drew and Langdon (as I have said, I do trust you guys)... but because I didn't really understand what I was agreeing to.
I haven't been overly worried about Terms of Use agreements at other sites because I haven't submitted any of my own creative work to them. I don't think this site compares to Yahoo or anything else of that sort. The only other place I upload my own photos is the webhosting I pay for. Up until now I haven't done any serious digital photography, because my old camera wasn't up to it, but when my new one arrives, I'd like to take it a bit more seriously, and I'm not going to take IP issues lightly. |
|
|
|
12/05/2002 06:14:15 PM · #41 |
Ahhh....growing pains. This agreement is sound and appropriate for two guys who decided to put a website together to have fun. Now as it gets larger they have to start protecting themselves and truthfully, I can't blame them one bit.
Guys, great job with this fantastic website. I am in. I agree to be bound by the provisions of the agreement. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be here.
Now go out and WOW us with images darn it.
My Online PBase Photo Album
Message edited by author 2002-12-05 23:38:16. |
|
|
|
12/05/2002 06:49:50 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by hardwaybets:
Guys, great job with this fantastic website. I am in. I agree to be bound by the provisions of the agreement. If I wasn't, I wouldn't be here. |
Everyone here agrees with this.
Originally posted by hardwaybets:
Now go out and WOW us with images darn it. |
This is the brushoff that some of us don't like. I don't want to WOW anyone with images if I'm not sure my IP is being protected. Is that wrong? Are you really going to say that? A lawyer?
Agreements should be covering two sets of arses - the guys who own the website and the people who use it. Don't forget that. I do not expect any action to be taken until their lawyer is available, and I do not expect it to be their highest priority, but I would like the agreement to be clarified with respect to IP issues, and for an explanation to be available somewhere on the site so that people like me who can use a camera but haven't been to law school or ever run a website can understand what the Terms of Use here really are. |
|
|
|
12/05/2002 06:56:19 PM · #43 |
Will you please chill out now? We've said about 4 times that we can't do anything with clause 5 until our lawyer gets back, and I think that's the point he's trying to make. Go enjoy the site.
Drew |
|
|
|
12/05/2002 07:00:45 PM · #44 |
Doesn't the phrase:
"All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission."
mean anything to anyone?
Besides...if anyone thought any of my photos were good enough to try and sell, I'd say they probably weren't mentally sound enough to be running a business anyway :0
Chill out. Enjoy the site or move on.
Rob
|
|
|
|
12/05/2002 07:03:15 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by drewmedia:
Will you please chill out now? We've said about 4 times that we can't do anything with clause 5 until our lawyer gets back, and I think that's the point he's trying to make. Go enjoy the site.
Drew |
Ah jesus. It's the point I made as well, if you read my last post. I hate it when a discussion is treated as a disagreement when it really isn't one. |
|
|
|
12/05/2002 08:46:22 PM · #46 |
Let's not everyone get their undies bunched...
Seems like everyone is trying to make nice, but not realizing that the others are trying to do the same.
I guess if I ever took a photo worth the paper it was printed on, I might get worried over clauses in agreements. I read them, I believe I understand them, and if anyone thinks they have "the photo" worth big bucks, don't enter it in a challenge. Mainly because it won't matter if DPC tried to make money off it or not. It's been circulated, which will reduce the value, and if it is really that hot, a bazillion people have already right-clicked and made it into a screen saver anyway.
Note to anyone who might remotely care... I am not upset, I am not accusing anyone else of being upset. I see a lot of names in here I respect because of the past work, and past posts in the forums. You all are good people. Take a deep breath, you all are trying to do the right thing. It will come together. Trust me.
|
|
|
|
12/05/2002 09:34:08 PM · #47 |
(Please note: my undies are not bunched and this post is not to be taken as any increased pressure on Drew and/or his lawyer to run around looking after my concerns.)
Originally posted by ambaker:
I guess if I ever took a photo worth the paper it was printed on, I might get worried over clauses in agreements. I read them, I believe I understand them, and if anyone thinks they have "the photo" worth big bucks, don't enter it in a challenge. Mainly because it won't matter if DPC tried to make money off it or not. It's been circulated, which will reduce the value, and if it is really that hot, a bazillion people have already right-clicked and made it into a screen saver anyway. |
I've never taken a photo I thought was worth any money, and I possibly never will. I was very pleased when someone told me they used a photo I submitted as their desktop background... once :). So, that's not my angle here, and I do understand what you're saying. However, the fact that this is a learning site means that people should be happy to post their best work here, otherwise it compromises their ability to refine their skills, don't you think? Sometimes people who are starting out don't even know how good their photos are.
Please understand that I'm not here with some kind of agenda forced by an oversized ego or belief in my own abilities... that's really not me at all. |
|
|
|
12/05/2002 10:34:38 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Doesn't the phrase:
"All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission."
mean anything to anyone?
|
It does, but I think the point that was being made was that clause 5 represents, essentially, giving that permission.
|
|
|
|
12/06/2002 05:57:32 AM · #49 |
"This is the brushoff that some of us don't like. I don't want to WOW anyone with images if I'm not sure my IP is being protected. Is that wrong? Are you really going to say that? A lawyer?"--Lisae.
I want to briefly respond to this. Please note that while I am a lawyer, I am providing no opinions in my capacity as such and strictly limit my comments to personal opinion. YOU SHOULD MAKE NO DECISIONS TO PARTICIPATE OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WEBSITE OR TO AGREE OR NOT TO AGREE WITH THE DPCHALLENGE USER AGREEMENT BASED ON MY PERSONAL OPINIONS! I AM NOT PROVIDING A LEGAL OPINION! I AM PROVIDING PERSONAL OPINION AS A USER OF THIS SITE!
YOU SHOULD CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE TO ADDRESS YOUR OWN LEGAL CONCERNS.
There is one simple way to deal with this if you are that adamant about the issue. You don't agree to the agreement. I chose to agree to the agreement. You certainly do not have to do the same, and you certainly SHOULD NOT INTERPRET MY DECISION TO JOIN AS AN IMPLIED LEGAL OPINION THAT JOINING THIS WEBSITE IS ACCEPTABLE IN LIGHT OF THE AGREEMENT.
While I am sure the founders of this website would like to have as many people participate, the sad truth is that their lawyer, if worth absolutely any weight in salt, will insist that the clause remain as drafted. It is his job to protect his clients not us. And I am quite certain that if he were your lawyer, you would want him to the the very same for you--namely, to protect your interests.
Lisae, I commend you for having the foresight to question a legal document. Not many people do. However, if you are that concerned about the issue, I strongly urge you to print up the agreement and take it to an attorney in your location to review it and to discuss your concerns.
This is my last comment on this issue. I am off to make my image for Motion.
My Photo Album |
|
|
|
12/06/2002 06:14:16 AM · #50 |
Section 5 is a non issue for me. They need the clause because your photo will be resized when they display it as thumbnails (hence it's modified for world wide audience). They require the need for non-exclusive agreement for display because without the right to publish, they cannot LEGALLY publish it! They can get sued later by some malicious user.
If you're worried about Drew and Langdon taking your photo and publishing it and getting money from it without your consent, i don't think you need to worry about it, the resolution at 640x480 with 150 kbytes is too low for any print publication anyway. Frankly, if you have a truly amazing image, you wouldn't want to submit it to here or any other website. Why? Because you cannot then sell it to a publisher for "first time rights".
The rights they get from the media is non-exclusive, which means you can sell it to anyone else as non-exclusive but you probably can't sell it as "exclusive" because you're already publishing it on DPc. if you choose to enter a photograph, you lose the rights for first-time use and exclusive use for publishing purposes.
|
|
