 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <377CCC9F.ABD88220@ledanet.com.au>, cco### [at] geocities com wrote:
>The line from Yahoo themselves seems to be that the "broad" language is
>required to allow them to better host/mirror the sites, and in this vein
>the references to "adapt, publish, translate..." and "technology now
>known or later developed" could be seen simply as allowing them to
>reformat pages for WebTV/spoken word browsers, etc. On the other hand,
Something that needs to be remembered is that even if a creator "trusts"
Yahoo not to take advantage of the broad license in other than "nice"
ways, ownership changes, and changes in ownership tend to transfer
contractual obligations (caveat: I am not a lawyer). Anyone who agrees to
those terms with Yahoo could well find themselves having agreed to those
terms with Microsoft, America On-Line, Sony, or AT&T later on. (Not saying
specifically that one of those are bad, just trying to include enough
corporations in the list that any individual creator might be scared of at
least one of those owning a perpetual irrevocable sublicensable license to
use their creations.)j
Management changes also need to be taken into account.
Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hej Chris, hey all!
I too have been and are a member of GeoCities for quite a while now and
I agree to Chris opinion that the web-hosting terms of service are not
as dangerous as it may seem.
I can quite well understand that Yahoo and all the other providers of
web space out there have to insure themselves for not being sued for
copyright forgery especially when they are hosted in a country like the
USA where every legal procedure easily is bound to millions of dollars.
The internet is still quite a new medium and thus are its rights and
laws. However if you have a look at the more established media like
print and even broadcast - whenever you want to publish something it's a
normal procedure that you transfer your copyright to the publisher or
broadcasting station. If e.g. you write a book and it's then published
by a company, the copyright of the book is no longer in your hands but
in the hands of the publisher (just open any book you can grab right now
and have a look on the very first pages). OK you might say: "I get payed
for writing the book, so they can get the rights..." but you don't get
payed by Yahoo/Geocities... That's right, but the readers of your web
page don't have to pay either - they would have to buy a book ...
I can live with the terms I agreed to at Yahoo and I'm not planning to
move to another service - but of course that's a decision that everyone
has to make by him/herself.
Uwe.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Uwe Zimmermann wrote:
>
> Hej Chris, hey all!
>
> I too have been and are a member of GeoCities for quite a while now and
> I agree to Chris opinion that the web-hosting terms of service are not
> as dangerous as it may seem.
> I can quite well understand that Yahoo and all the other providers of
> web space out there have to insure themselves for not being sued for
> copyright forgery especially when they are hosted in a country like the
> USA where every legal procedure easily is bound to millions of dollars.
> The internet is still quite a new medium and thus are its rights and
> laws. However if you have a look at the more established media like
> print and even broadcast - whenever you want to publish something it's a
> normal procedure that you transfer your copyright to the publisher or
> broadcasting station. If e.g. you write a book and it's then published
> by a company, the copyright of the book is no longer in your hands but
> in the hands of the publisher (just open any book you can grab right now
> and have a look on the very first pages). OK you might say: "I get payed
> for writing the book, so they can get the rights..." but you don't get
> payed by Yahoo/Geocities... That's right, but the readers of your web
> page don't have to pay either - they would have to buy a book ...
>
> I can live with the terms I agreed to at Yahoo and I'm not planning to
> move to another service - but of course that's a decision that everyone
> has to make by him/herself.
>
> Uwe.
Let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's say I take 1
year making the most beautiful 3d raytraced image ever produced by
anyone. I then decide to share the fruits of my labor with the world
and then find it two weeks later as the official splash screen for
Yahoo/Geocities making a fortune for them and not a penny goes to me.
I will drag their sorry butts into every court in the land from city
to federal using any and every unscrupulous lawyer I can find who
want's to make a name for himself and I won't stop until I have
satisfaction.
There are limits to responsible business and they simply cannot self
proclaim themselves to be sharks and expect everyone to be happy being
their next meal. Obviously only a fool would put work of such value on
a site where grand theft like this could happen and I for one would not
even consider doing so.
I see this policy of theirs not only restrictive but socially and morally
unconscionable.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hej Ken, hej all!
First: Ken, you really seem to live "in" this list, concerning your
short answer delay times.... ;-)
Ken wrote:
> Let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's say I take 1
> year making the most beautiful 3d raytraced image ever produced by
> anyone. I then decide to share the fruits of my labor with the world
> and then find it two weeks later as the official splash screen for
> Yahoo/Geocities making a fortune for them and not a penny goes to me.
I'm not a lawyer, nor am I firm in the juristic language (and by the way
I'm not employed by or in any other way related to Yahoo) used in the
USA or otherwhere on this planet (as these languages often differ quite
a lot from the "common" languages). However, in the Terms of Service the
now often cited and controversely discussed paragraph reads:
"[..] By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically
grant [..] Yahoo the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive
and fully sublicensable right and license to _use_, _reproduce_,
_modify_, _adapt_, _publish_, _translate_, _create derivative_ works
from, _distribute_, _perform and display_ such Content (in whole or
part) worldwide and/or to _incorporate_ it in other works in any form,
media, or technology now known or later developed. [..]"
Well isn't it, what we expect Yahoo to do? Publish our pages on a
worldwide basis?
Uploading something to your homepage at Geocities/Yahoo you do not
surrender your authorship to Yahoo! They still have to name you as
author/creator of your "most beautiful 3d raytraced image" whenever they
decide to put it somewhere else!
And by the way: who guarantees you that your picture is not used as the
title of a book somewhere else on this world, once you put it on the web
- without your knowledge and without you ever seeing the result.....
By the way, Yahoo is very concerned that the latter does not happen to
your creations, if you read article 23: Copyright and Copyright Agents
of the Terms of Service:
"Yahoo respects the intellectual property of others, and we ask our
users to do the same. If you believe that your work has been copied in a
way that constitutes copyright infringement, pleas provide Yahoo's
Copyright Agent the following: ..."
But that stuff above is only my own humbled opinion and my own
interpretation of the contract.
Uwe.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Uwe Zimmermann wrote:
>
> Hej Ken, hej all!
>
> First: Ken, you really seem to live "in" this list, concerning your
> short answer delay times.... ;-)
>
> Ken wrote:
> > Let's look at it from a different perspective. Let's say I take 1
> > year making the most beautiful 3d raytraced image ever produced by
> > anyone. I then decide to share the fruits of my labor with the world
> > and then find it two weeks later as the official splash screen for
> > Yahoo/Geocities making a fortune for them and not a penny goes to me.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, nor am I firm in the juristic language (and by the way
> I'm not employed by or in any other way related to Yahoo) used in the
> USA or otherwhere on this planet (as these languages often differ quite
> a lot from the "common" languages). However, in the Terms of Service the
> now often cited and controversely discussed paragraph reads:
>
> "[..] By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically
> grant [..] Yahoo the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive
> and fully sublicensable right and license to _use_, _reproduce_,
> _modify_, _adapt_, _publish_, _translate_, _create derivative_ works
> from, _distribute_, _perform and display_ such Content (in whole or
> part) worldwide and/or to _incorporate_ it in other works in any form,
> media, or technology now known or later developed. [..]"
>
> Well isn't it, what we expect Yahoo to do? Publish our pages on a
> worldwide basis?
> Uploading something to your homepage at Geocities/Yahoo you do not
> surrender your authorship to Yahoo! They still have to name you as
> author/creator of your "most beautiful 3d raytraced image" whenever they
> decide to put it somewhere else!
>
> And by the way: who guarantees you that your picture is not used as the
> title of a book somewhere else on this world, once you put it on the web
> - without your knowledge and without you ever seeing the result.....
>
> By the way, Yahoo is very concerned that the latter does not happen to
> your creations, if you read article 23: Copyright and Copyright Agents
> of the Terms of Service:
> "Yahoo respects the intellectual property of others, and we ask our
> users to do the same. If you believe that your work has been copied in a
> way that constitutes copyright infringement, pleas provide Yahoo's
> Copyright Agent the following: ..."
>
> But that stuff above is only my own humbled opinion and my own
> interpretation of the contract.
>
> Uwe.
What bothers me is the part where they say they can adapt or modify the content.
What would that imply?
Remco
http://www.geocities.com:80/SiliconValley/Lakes/7077/screen.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Uwe Zimmermann wrote:
> Hej Ken, hej all!
>
> I'm not a lawyer, nor am I firm in the juristic language (and by the way
> I'm not employed by or in any other way related to Yahoo) used in the
> USA or otherwhere on this planet (as these languages often differ quite
> a lot from the "common" languages). However, in the Terms of Service the
> now often cited and controversely discussed paragraph reads:
>
> "[..] By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically
> grant [..] Yahoo the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive
> and fully sublicensable right and license to _use_, _reproduce_,
> _modify_, _adapt_, _publish_, _translate_, _create derivative_ works
> from, _distribute_, _perform and display_ such Content (in whole or
> part) worldwide and/or to _incorporate_ it in other works in any form,
> media, or technology now known or later developed. [..]"
>
> Well isn't it, what we expect Yahoo to do? Publish our pages on a
> worldwide basis?
>
> By the way, Yahoo is very concerned that the latter does not happen to
> your creations, if you read article 23: Copyright and Copyright Agents
> of the Terms of Service:
You can read a copy of the letter they sent out to everyone here
http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/info/toshelp.html
The problem is that the license is overly broad, but their representation
of it is narrow. For example, they mention that "The license exists for as
long as you continue to be a Yahoo! GeoCities homesteader, no longer" and a
few other 'rules'. However, their license states it is "perpetual", and
"irrevocable".
The problem is that the letter is nice and warm-fuzzy, _but is not legally
binding_!
Now, given Geocities track record with their privacy violations (probably
actually violating the law, not just their promises to users) I am a little
weary. Why not include those 'rules' from the letter in their actual
license agreement??? It's not to hard to state "for the sole purpose of" in
their legal document. Other on-line services do. It reminds me of Microsoft
pushing for exact wording in the right to 'integrate' products in their
original settlement with the Justice Department. Once they get the escape
clause in...
Now, I think that Geocities is improving, but that they should still be
held accountable to all their end-users, whom they are making a lot of
money off of already. At one time they possibly broke the law and sold
private end-user information to third-party marketing firms. What's to stop
them in the future from publishing magazine, etc. with our content and
images? Or from selling them to clip-art collections, _when it is currently
completely legal for them to do so_?????
This site has a good analysis of both the initial agreement, and of the
letter that they responded with:
http://copyright.focus-online.com/yahoogeocities.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 16:28:35 +0200, Remco de Korte
<rem### [at] xs4allnl> wrote:
>Uwe Zimmermann wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> "[..] By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically
>> grant [..] Yahoo the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive
>> and fully sublicensable right and license to _use_, _reproduce_,
>> _modify_, _adapt_, _publish_, _translate_, _create derivative_ works
>> from, _distribute_, _perform and display_ such Content (in whole or
>> part) worldwide and/or to _incorporate_ it in other works in any form,
>> media, or technology now known or later developed. [..]"
>>
>> Well isn't it, what we expect Yahoo to do? Publish our pages on a
>> worldwide basis?
[snip]
>
>What bothers me is the part where they say they can adapt or modify the content.
>What would that imply?
>
Their paragraph leads to a number of possible implications which are
worrying to varying degrees.
For example - they *don't* have to credit you if they re-use your
image (or whatever) since you've granted them right to do so with no
mention of their having to credit you.
They *can* charge for your image (or whatever) should they so choose
to do. It might be your intent (as with my ex-geocities site) for your
work to be freely available, for nothing. Nowt. Because you want
people to see it. There's nothing stopping them gathering up images
from across their servers and making an expensive coffee-table book
from them.
It's possible that their agreement _could_ (only could) infringe the
POV legal docs. I've not looked at these for a long time (far too
long) but the rough gist seems to be "this software is free, don't use
it to make money". If Yahoo sell POV-created images for a profit,
having extracted your (my, whoever's) permission to do so by allowing
them any use they desire of the object - then is someone breaking
POV's terms? They're certainly breaking the spirit of the idea of free
software, IMHO.
Cheers,
Cliff Bowman
Why not pay my 3D Dr Who site a visit at http://www.who3d.cwc.net/
PS change ".duffcom" to ".net" if replying via e-mail
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cliff Bowman wrote:
> It's possible that their agreement _could_ (only could) infringe the
> POV legal docs. I've not looked at these for a long time (far too
> long) but the rough gist seems to be "this software is free, don't use
> it to make money". If Yahoo sell POV-created images for a profit,
> having extracted your (my, whoever's) permission to do so by allowing
> them any use they desire of the object - then is someone breaking
> POV's terms? They're certainly breaking the spirit of the idea of free
> software, IMHO.
That is not the case. The Pov team does not want the "Program" sold for
profit nor do they allow that others will incorporate their program into
theirs and use it to profit from. No where do they discourage you from
rendering images with the software and trying to earn money from the
sale of those images. Their intent is to protect their own intellectual
property rights where the software they distribute is concerned and not
the content of the product that may be produced by use of said softwares
where legaly obtained and used in accordance with the terms of use policy.
This is at least my interpertation of the acceptable use policy that I
have agreed to by using it as I do.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cliff Bowman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 16:28:35 +0200, Remco de Korte
> <rem### [at] xs4allnl> wrote:
>
> It's possible that their agreement _could_ (only could) infringe the
> POV legal docs. I've not looked at these for a long time (far too
> long) but the rough gist seems to be "this software is free, don't use
> it to make money". If Yahoo sell POV-created images for a profit,
> having extracted your (my, whoever's) permission to do so by allowing
> them any use they desire of the object - then is someone breaking
> POV's terms? They're certainly breaking the spirit of the idea of free
> software, IMHO.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Cliff Bowman
Up comes another issue. I read the povlegal-docs in the beginning but such
things tend to evaporate from my memory. Is it true that you're not allowed to
sell POV-images for a profit? I thought that was restricted to the program. Am I
mistaken? How about programs that work with POVRay?
Regards,
Remco
http://www.xs4all.nl/~remcodek/pov.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 16:03:33 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>That is not the case. The Pov team does not want the "Program" sold for
>profit nor do they allow that others will incorporate their program into
>theirs and use it to profit from. No where do they discourage you from
>rendering images with the software and trying to earn money from the
>sale of those images.
That is correct, Ken. What you do with the images you create are your
business. The POV-Team does not concern itself with any profits from artwork
made with its software, just the protection of the software itself.
--
Alan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.povray.org - Home of the Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer
news.povray.org - where POV-Ray enthusiasts around the world can get
together to exchange ideas, information, and experiences with others
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
