 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
They have a new aggreement that includes a clause that basically says
they get to use whatever you post in whatever way they feel, forever and
at no charge.
see http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/29/1535228.shtml
and
http://copyright.focus-online.com/copyright.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3779CA01.45565471@geocities.com> , "Jon A. Cruz"
<jon### [at] geocities com> wrote:
> They have a new aggreement that includes a clause that basically says
> they get to use whatever you post in whatever way they feel, forever and
> at no charge.
>
> see http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/29/1535228.shtml
>
> and
>
> http://copyright.focus-online.com/copyright.html
Well, as far as I have read so for on the other free webspace offers, most
of them have terms like that...
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: Tho### [at] csicom
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Not to resell...
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Thorsten Froehlich wrote in message <3779cf60@news.povray.org>...
>In article <3779CA01.45565471@geocities.com> , "Jon A. Cruz"
><jon### [at] geocitiescom> wrote:
>
>> They have a new aggreement that includes a clause that basically says
>> they get to use whatever you post in whatever way they feel, forever and
>> at no charge.
>>
>> see http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/29/1535228.shtml
>>
>> and
>>
>> http://copyright.focus-online.com/copyright.html
>
>Well, as far as I have read so for on the other free webspace offers, most
>of them have terms like that...
>
>
> Thorsten
>
>
>____________________________________________________
>Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
>e-mail: Tho### [at] csicom
>
>Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jon A. Cruz wrote:
>
> They have a new aggreement that includes a clause that basically says
> they get to use whatever you post in whatever way they feel, forever and
> at no charge.
>
> see http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/29/1535228.shtml
>
> and
>
> http://copyright.focus-online.com/copyright.html
Damn, I just updated my site. If someone wants, then feel free to visit
it:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5016/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You should probably have a link there so that people will know what is
going on.
perhaps http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8984/ would do fine.
Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>
> Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> >
> > They have a new aggreement that includes a clause that basically says
> > they get to use whatever you post in whatever way they feel, forever and
> > at no charge.
> >
> > see http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/29/1535228.shtml
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://copyright.focus-online.com/copyright.html
>
> Damn, I just updated my site. If someone wants, then feel free to visit
> it:
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5016/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
You should probably have a link there so that people will know what is
going on.
perhaps http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8984/ would do fine.
Vahur Krouverk wrote:
>
> Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> >
> > They have a new aggreement that includes a clause that basically says
> > they get to use whatever you post in whatever way they feel, forever and
> > at no charge.
> >
> > see http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/29/1535228.shtml
> >
> > and
> >
> > http://copyright.focus-online.com/copyright.html
>
> Damn, I just updated my site. If someone wants, then feel free to visit
> it:
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5016/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Just so I unaderstand the full ramifications of what you are warning us
about let me propose a hypothetical situation and you tell me if it applies
to this "new" policy you are alerting us to.
I have a website on Geocities that is bound by this new contract. I
decide to host a mirror site for Pov-Ray and put a copy of all of the
binaries on this page for people to download.
Does the new policy imply that because I have those files on my site
they now have the unimpeded right to use the official Pov program to make
money on it ?
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'm adding the following html to the top and bottom of my pages:
|
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8984/"
target="_blank">Boycott Geocities</a>
Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> You should probably have a link there so that people will know what is
> going on.
>
> perhaps http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8984/ would do fine.
>
> Vahur Krouverk wrote:
> >
> > Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> > >
> > > They have a new aggreement that includes a clause that basically says
> > > they get to use whatever you post in whatever way they feel, forever and
> > > at no charge.
> > >
> > > see http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/29/1535228.shtml
> > >
> > > and
> > >
> > > http://copyright.focus-online.com/copyright.html
> >
> > Damn, I just updated my site. If someone wants, then feel free to visit
> > it:
> > http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Peaks/5016/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:11:32 -0700, Ken wrote:
> I have a website on Geocities that is bound by this new contract. I
>decide to host a mirror site for Pov-Ray and put a copy of all of the
>binaries on this page for people to download.
> Does the new policy imply that because I have those files on my site
>they now have the unimpeded right to use the official Pov program to make
>money on it ?
No. The new policy implies that you don't have the right to make the
mirror site, as you don't have the legal right to assign copyright on
the files.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:11:32 -0700, Ken wrote:
> > I have a website on Geocities that is bound by this new contract. I
> >decide to host a mirror site for Pov-Ray and put a copy of all of the
> >binaries on this page for people to download.
> > Does the new policy imply that because I have those files on my site
> >they now have the unimpeded right to use the official Pov program to make
> >money on it ?
>
> No. The new policy implies that you don't have the right to make the
> mirror site, as you don't have the legal right to assign copyright on
> the files.
Then only a fool would do business with these people !!!
--
Ken Tyler
mailto://tylereng@pacbell.net
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ron Parker wrote:
>
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:11:32 -0700, Ken wrote:
> > I have a website on Geocities that is bound by this new contract. I
> >decide to host a mirror site for Pov-Ray and put a copy of all of the
> >binaries on this page for people to download.
> > Does the new policy imply that because I have those files on my site
> >they now have the unimpeded right to use the official Pov program to make
> >money on it ?
>
> No. The new policy implies that you don't have the right to make the
> mirror site, as you don't have the legal right to assign copyright on
> the files.
Somebody should warn Chris Colefax if hasn't been warned yet!
Marc
--
Marc Schimmler
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>Somebody should warn Chris Colefax if hasn't been warned yet!
>
>Marc
>--
>Marc Schimmler
Just sent him an email.
--
Lance.
---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://listen.to/colorblind
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <377a73d8@news.povray.org> , par### [at] fwicom (Ron Parker) wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 1999 12:11:32 -0700, Ken wrote:
>> I have a website on Geocities that is bound by this new contract. I
>>decide to host a mirror site for Pov-Ray and put a copy of all of the
>>binaries on this page for people to download.
>> Does the new policy imply that because I have those files on my site
>>they now have the unimpeded right to use the official Pov program to make
>>money on it ?
>
> No. The new policy implies that you don't have the right to make the
> mirror site, as you don't have the legal right to assign copyright on
> the files.
Well, even if you would, there would be little they can do (legally) if you
have data with copyright on your site, at least if you are outside the US...
the worst they can do is take the site of there server.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: Tho### [at] csicom
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jon A. Cruz" wrote:
> They have a new aggreement that includes a clause that basically says
> they get to use whatever you post in whatever way they feel, forever and
> at no charge.
>
> see http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/29/1535228.shtml
>
> and
>
> http://copyright.focus-online.com/copyright.html
It looks like things are somewhat working.
Geocities/Yahoo is trying to clear up their license and public perception.
It's a start. Good to see that some people can make a difference (even if
it's a tiny token one).
http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,38643,00.html?st.ne.fd.gif.e
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jon A. Cruz wrote:
> They have a new aggreement that includes a clause that basically says
> they get to use whatever you post in whatever way they feel, forever and
> at no charge.
and after some discussion, Marc Schimmler wrote:
> Somebody should warn Chris Colefax if hasn't been warned yet!
Thanks to Lance and others I have been duly notified - gratitude to all
for showing such concern! In response I've taken the time to read
through the new and revised Terms of Service, and various objections
that have been raised elsewhere on the web. If you could forgive me for
being a little moderate, it seems to me to be a question (as always) of
interpretation.
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,
"the purpose of displaying and distributing such Content on our network
of properties and for the promotion and marketing of *our* services" (my
emphasis) is fairly explicit!
For me, the most 'interesting' phrase is "royalty-free, perpetual,
irrevocable, non-exclusive ... right and license". I can live with the
first (I've never paid them a cent, so what do I expect!), and I quite
like the fourth, but the severity of the terms sandwiched in-between is
definitely concerning.
>From a practical point of view it's a matter of weighing up the
alternatives - as has been said, Yahoo's terms aren't much different
from other 'free' services, and Lance has already moaned about the cost
of the net here in Australia so I won't bore you with more "wish I was
over there" sentiments. My current ISP does offer web space, but it
would mean removing/reducing the AVI and JPG samples on my site.
Truth be told I've quite enjoyed GeoCities hosting my site - the steady
web and email addresses have been great as I move from ISP to ISP, and
the hosting service has been bigger and better than any of the local
ISP's I've tried so far. The pop-up's were admittedly irritating, but
it didn't take much to remove them, and the replacement banner ad's seem
to be pretty much par for the course in these heady, commercial days.
As it is consumer pressure may yet effect more amendments to Yahoo's
policy, and at any rate I can't currently 'sign-up' properly with
Yahoo-GeoCities due to an error with their server (an ominous sign,
perhaps?!), so I have yet to bind myself to anything definite....
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <377CCC9F.ABD88220@ledanet.com.au>, cco### [at] geocitiescom 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Jul 1999 01:34:08 -0400, Dick Balaska <dic### [at] buckosoftcom>
wrote:
>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.)
>--
But, even with my misconceptions aside, it does make frighteningly
logical sense doesn't it? After all (as I've learnt to my pain over
the last 10 years) businesses are generally after profit first,
second, and third. With some of the great stuff that's on Geocities it
almost cries out for being stored on a CD/DVD and marketed this way.
If Yahoo's agreement allows them to have all the source for free, and
it's on their own servers, how long is it going to take for them to
think of it?
Worst yet (possibly) I could see Yahoo releasing a CD/DVD which could,
theoretically, compete with the "officially unofficial" IRC CD-ROM. I
don't want these fellas to lose a penny without damn good reason.
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
For those that have sites on XOOM or Tripod, read those TOSs as well. They
have the same type of wording. As a matter of fact, if you read the TOS for
Tripod and XOOM the wording is almost identical to that of Yahoo. A lot of
those "free" sites throw that in and a lot of people don't read the fine
print. I posted a previous message to see if anyone knew of any other "free"
sites that don't do this( I read Fortunecity's and they don't seem to have
those terms) . I got one response for a European company called YI . If
anyone finds others, I mentioned before that I would be willing to put
together a list and perhaps post it here (or on a website ) once a month for
newcomers or for those looking for alternative sites if anyone is interested.
Cheers,
Donna
nonego (at) yahoo (dot) com [ <--- yes, I know, a Yahoo address - it's where i
divert junk mail ]
dino (at) netbrain (dot) com
Quote from XOOM.com "You grant to XOOM.com and its affiliates a
royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable,
nonexclusive,
worldwide, unrestricted license to use,
copy, modify,
transmit, distribute, and publicly perform
or display the
submitted pages or other content for the
purposes of
displaying such information on XOOM.com's
sites and
for the promotion and marketing of
XOOM.com's
services.
Change the "XOOM" to "Tripod" and they're nearly the same. I'm sure a bunch
of others do this as well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3782A362.13305087@ask.me>, Mrs Beasley <jus### [at] askme> wrote:
>For those that have sites on XOOM or Tripod, read those TOSs as well. They
>have the same type of wording. As a matter of fact, if you read the TOS for
>Tripod and XOOM the wording is almost identical to that of Yahoo. A lot of
>
>You grant to XOOM.com and its affiliates a royalty-free, perpetual,
irrevocable,
>nonexclusive, worldwide, unrestricted license to use, copy,
>modify, transmit, distribute, and publicly perform or display the
>submitted pages or other content for the purposes of displaying
>such information on XOOM.com's sites and for the
>promotion and marketing of XOOM.com's services. XOOM.com
>disclaims ownership of member sites and will not resell or
>otherwise convey these rights to any third party.
While the "perpetual, irrevocable" is still bothersome, XOOM at least does
not give itself the right to sublicense, and limits the rights to use only
for the purpose of maintaining the site, and for promotion and marketing
of the site. While "promotion and marketing" could well be construed
broadly, it is at least *some* limitation, which is more than Yahoo's
limitation.
(Note also that, the last I checked, Yahoo has *two* TOS files, one for
Geocities Homesteading and one for everything else. How long this will
last, I don't know. We appear to be talking about the Yahoo wording.)
If you can afford the few bucks a month, I'd recommend places like
pair.com and io.com.
Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I'll stick with my local ISP :) , but I will add pair.com and io.com to
a list of free or low cost sites that are alternatives to places that
have questionable TOSs (i.e. Yahoo).
Later,
Donna
Jerry wrote:
. . . {snipped}
>
> If you can afford the few bucks a month, I'd recommend places like
> pair.com and io.com.
>
> Jerry
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerry wrote:
> In article <3782A362.13305087@ask.me>, Mrs Beasley <jus### [at] askme> wrote:
>
> >For those that have sites on XOOM or Tripod, read those TOSs as well. They
> >have the same type of wording. As a matter of fact, if you read the TOS for
> >Tripod and XOOM the wording is almost identical to that of Yahoo. A lot of
> >
> >You grant to XOOM.com and its affiliates a royalty-free, perpetual,
> irrevocable,
> >nonexclusive, worldwide, unrestricted license to use, copy,
> >modify, transmit, distribute, and publicly perform or display the
> >submitted pages or other content for the purposes of displaying
> >such information on XOOM.com's sites and for the
> >promotion and marketing of XOOM.com's services. XOOM.com
> >disclaims ownership of member sites and will not resell or
> >otherwise convey these rights to any third party.
>
> While the "perpetual, irrevocable" is still bothersome, XOOM at least does
> not give itself the right to sublicense, and limits the rights to use only
> for the purpose of maintaining the site, and for promotion and marketing
> of the site. While "promotion and marketing" could well be construed
> broadly, it is at least *some* limitation, which is more than Yahoo's
> limitation.
I think this is the key difference between the XOOM and Geocities agreements.
It's almost identical the same way that the terms"tax avoidance" and "tax
evasion" are almost identical, but the IRS will be quite happy to help you learn
the difference. :-)
Seriously, the main problem with the Geocities one is that
1) Geocities does not include "for the purposes of" in the sentence on license.
2) They do not disclaim reselling.
3) They have the right to sub-license to third parties.
Their letter tries to rationalize these, but it is not quite there. Of course,
they added a sentence at the begining that tends to narrow the gap, so it might
not be so bad. But, it is still important to call them on it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
