Terms of Use?

[Darraketh]

Does the TOU for the news site apply to the messageboard? More specifically:

7. Submission of Content on this Web Site.
By providing any Content to our web site:
(a) you agree to grant to us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive right and license (including any moral rights or other necessary rights) to use, display, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, distribute, perform, promote, archive, translate, and to create derivative works and compilations, in whole or in part. Such license will apply with respect to any form, media, technology known or later developed;

Yahoo Groups has a similar stipulation but you can opt out by removing your work from their site and the license is thus revoked. I don't see such an option here.

There may be an unspoken gentleman's agreement but basically I can submit to EN World a sneak preview of my upcoming book (if I had one that is) and EN World can have its way with it. It can be combined with others in a pdf; "The Best of EN World sneak previews. It's also possible to pick and choose snippets of submitted information and come up with a $40 hardbound book. Credit doesn't need to be given to the original authors since they give the above rights to EN World upon submission of anything.

Is this alarming? Am I being an alarmist? Does this sort of thing really matter?

 

[Ashtal]

Morrus is a strong defender of IP rights - he doesn't allow anyone to post PDFs of copyrighted material, or links to such material. Neither would he take material from board users and distribute it.

 

[Morrus]

That's some kind of default thing from the software. A bit too "legalese" for me. I guess it's written more as a "covering our backs" thing than a "giving us the ability to exploit you" thing.

Where did you find it, btw? If there are automatic TOC's on the site, I really should see them!

 

[Darraketh]

That's some kind of default thing from the software. A bit too "legalese" for me. I guess it's written more as a "covering our backs" thing than a "giving us the ability to exploit you" thing.

Where did you find it, btw? If there are automatic TOC's on the site, I really should see them!

I appreciate that you would never stoop to something like I'd suggested is possible under the current "Terms of Use v1.11 for EN World." However they are the current TOU, therefor my concern. Why use them if they are misstating the fact? Well you've answered that and I could have surmised as much but I feel the issue needed to be pointed out.

A couple of years ago Geocities came up with very similiar TOU which caused a major uproar and made national news.

Sorry for not providing a link.

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=legal&file=index

Check out the "Privacy Policy" for information on how EN World is working with DoubleClick and Commission Junction among others and how private information will be used in the event of a sale of the site to a third party.

It all sounds canned. Almost cut-n-paste.

 

[Morrus]

Well, yeah - it is canned. I certainly didn't write it! What you're looking at is fairly common practice for a web site (presumably every Post Nuke site out there contains these terms - and that's a lot of sites!)

This is the terms and policies file which comes as default when you install PostNuke. Presumably it can be edited somewhere - not that I feel qualified to edit a legal document!

Anyway, until then, here are my thoughts on the bits you raised:

1) That "Doubleclick" and "Commission Junction" just appears in a list of sample advertisers as far as I can tell. Not a very good sample for this site, but harmless.

2) I don't see a problem with the use of data if the site should be sold line (not that I have any immediate plans to sell it! ) - it's just saying "If someone else takes over the site, we won't be deleting all of the user accounts". It says that any data will be used by the person who takes over in the same way as the current owner (me) uses it (which includes your ability to request its removal). If I've missed a problem there due to not being able to speak legalese, let me know - but I think that's just saying clearly what is pretty much common sense anyway. When I took over the messageboards from Eric I didn't delete all the user accounts.

In fact, I'd say that this clause seems important should someone else take over one day - and is beneficial to you, so as not to interrupt the operation of the site should such a thing hapen.

3) The use of submitted content malarky - well, as I said, I'm no expert. But it seems to me that it gives me the permission I need in order to run the site (permission which we've all taken for granted so far). I need to be able to reproduce info, edit it, present it in various ways on the site and so forth. If 12 people all send me scoops regarding a new WotC product, I need to be able to gather all that info, combine it into a coherent report and publish it on the site. All it says is "when you send me info, I can use it in the way I think best."

I think you're reading far more into it than is actually there. But then again, as I said, I'm no expert on this sort of thing!

Notice also, it's a "worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive right and license" -- it is not giving me ownership of anything. It is not taking anything away from the owner of the material. All it is saying is that I can use it.

I'm not sure what the best thing to do is. I don't feel confident enough to edit it; I presume that removing it wouldn't do any harm, but only in the sense that everything has been an unspoken good faith agreement so far and no one has tried to cause any trouble for me in that way. Perhaps, as the site grows, I need a little protection spelled out - especially since I seem to be unwittingly making a few enemies here and there these days!

What do people think?

 

[Darraketh]

I suppose there is no real harm in leaving it the way it is particularly since you, Morrus, are the person running the site. What I'm saying is, I trust you. Mostly do to your forthrightness with my concerns. However in the wrong hands such TOU can be abused. I mean who needs ownership when you have "worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive right and license."

Personally I hate legalese but it is a necessary evil. It's like fighting fire with fire. Better safe than sorry these days with everyone from CEOs to priests taking advantage of folks.

My work here is done.

BTW, It's nice to be able to get answers straight from the top.

 

[chatdemon]

We've got a similar disclaimer on Canonfire! It was reworded to say basically 'if you submit it now, you can't demand its removal later'. This prevents a situation where I submit something really cool that Morrus decides to use in some feature of the site, complete with links and such, and then I get bitchy and decide I want it taken down. The process of removing the article itself is painless, basically one or two clicks in the nuke admin engine and it's done, but the ardous quest to remove every single link to the article could cause major headaches. Another possible problem we were afraid of with Canonfire! is the stability of the SQL database may (we're not sure, but better safe than sorry) be comprimised if article #500 is longer sitting where it should between article #499 and article #501.

Basically we should trust Morrus and co. not to take advantage of the language of the legal statement. He's always been pretty upfront about things, and he also has the habit of letting us know about new projects before they go live, so in the event someone feels slighted about the use of their contribution sometime down the road, I'm sure there will be plenty of time to work things out before it's too late.

 

[chatdemon]

But it seems to me that it gives me the permission I need in order to run the site (permission which we've all taken for granted so far). I need to be able to reproduce info, edit it, present it in various ways on the site and so forth. If 12 people all send me scoops regarding a new WotC product, I need to be able to gather all that info, combine it into a coherent report and publish it on the site. All it says is "when you send me info, I can use it in the way I think best."

Right, the language is all encompassing enough to cover any legal defense you could concievably have to make in regard to your use of the material.

I'm not sure what the best thing to do is. I don't feel confident enough to edit it; I presume that removing it wouldn't do any harm, but only in the sense that everything has been an unspoken good faith agreement so far and no one has tried to cause any trouble for me in that way. Perhaps, as the site grows, I need a little protection spelled out - especially since I seem to be unwittingly making a few enemies here and there these days!

I think it's the safe bet to leave that language as is. In order to calm people's nerves, you may want to add a little addendum to that provision outlining how this site in particular will use contributions, noting that it is impossible to forsee every possibility and problem and explaining that the language of provision #7 of the ToU is simply to protect your legal right to use contributed material, as you said, in the way you feel is needed to present it best on the site.

Even if you don't intend to follow those rules to the full extent of their verbiage, keeping them as is prevents jokers (like me, I suppose ) from coming along later and saying 'Hey, I didn't know that' or 'wait, you never said....'

Better safe than sorry.

 

[Horacio]

I agree with chatdemon (Oh my God, I agree with him! ), better safe than sorry.