 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] xs4all nl> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Remco de Korte wrote:
>
> 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
The first provision in Pov Legal clearly states the following:
Permission is granted to the user to use the software and associated files
in this package to create and render images. The use of this software for the
purpose of creating images is completely free. The creator of a scene file and
the image created from the scene file, retains all rights to the image and scene
file they created and may use them for any purpose commercial or non-commercial.
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cliff Bowman wrote:
[ note the clever use of the delete key ]
> There's nothing stopping them gathering up images
> from across their servers and making an expensive coffee-table book
> from them.
Or more likely, press The Yahoo! DVD-ROM
"Now with over 100,000 web sites!!"
"Decrease Web site downloading time by over 1500% !!!"
"Search locally from your computer using YahooQL!"
"Now only $59.99 from our secure web server!"
(No, i don't have an url, i made it up.)
--
_,--"
dik `-._ ________-_______ "----
_----'--'--------------------------------'--'----_
//_| | \ dic### [at] buckosoftcom / | |_\\
(_____|_|__= Guilford CT +1.203.458.1727 =__|_|_____)
_\_____=___ http://www.buckosoft.com ___=_____/_
\/-(o)-~~-(o)-~~-(o)-`------'-(o)-~~-(o)-~~-(o)-\/
Early Klingon Poetry:
Wustl, Wustl, ERR RIP MIT BOOT, BIND Wustl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
If no expert in the american law and lawhabits but here in Germany the
declarations by Yahoo that the new TOS is only meant in this or that way
would drawn in account by the judges during a a lawsuit. It would be
very difficult for them declaring this is only for convenience and not
to steal the interlectual property but then doing the opposite.
Just my two cents!
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
>
>
> The first provision in Pov Legal clearly states the following:
>
> Permission is granted to the user to use the software and associated files
> in this package to create and render images. The use of this software for the
> purpose of creating images is completely free. The creator of a scene file and
> the image created from the scene file, retains all rights to the image and scene
> file they created and may use them for any purpose commercial or non-commercial.
>
> --
> Ken Tyler
>
> mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Whew! Then let the bucks roll in!
Thanks again Ken, and Alan.
Mazzel!
Remco
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jul 1999 16:03:33 -0700, Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
>
>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.
>
I really ought to learn to read - and to remember.
Thanks Ken - makes me feel even more warm and glowly about the POV
guys (still not impressed by the Yahoologans tho).
>sigh< - I'll get something right one of these days.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
