Legal Concerns

[physasst]

Well, there has been a very dynamic discussion on one of photography reviews sister sites regarding the consumer reviews TOS. Both roadbikereview and photographyreview fall under this umbrella. Several folks over there are scared now to post photos to EITHER site. I was wondering what photo-johns take might be, and what other posters here might think. I'm not trying to incite, or inflame, but rather question, so that I, and others, might better understand.....

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/sho...d.php?t=116556

Thanks in advance for your time.:thumbsup:

[adina]

All I can say is thank God we switched to the new format. This one is sooo much easier to follow!

[Len J]

Has anyone read the terms of use for this site?

I post over on RoadBikeReview and have recently begun posting here. There is an issue being raised over there about the terms of use that concerns me there, and also here. Here is the quote from the terms of use (My emphasis added):

License Grant
By contributing or submitting product reviews, message board postings, product photographs, or any other Content, you automatically grant (or warrant that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) us an irrevocable, royalty-free, transferable and worldwide right and license to use, copy, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from and sell and distribute such materials or incorporate such materials into any form, medium or technology without compensation to you. In addition, you warrant that all so-called moral rights in those materials have been waived. None of the materials shall be subject to any obligation of confidence on the part of ConsumerREVIEW.com. (http://www.consumerreview.com/channe...ain/terms.html)

Am I misreading this? It appears pretty clear that I would be giving up rights to my photos by posting them here.

On the copyright page of Consumerreview, it refers to an amendment related to photogorphyreview.......anyone know where this amendment is?

"By contributing or submitting product reviews, message board postings, product photographs, or any other Content, you automatically grant (or warrant that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) us an irrevocable, royalty-free, transferable and worldwide right and license to use, copy, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from and sell and distribute such materials or incorporate such materials into any form, medium or technology without compensation to you. In addition, you warrant that all so-called moral rights in those materials have been waived. None of the materials shall be subject to any obligation of confidence on the part of ConsumerREVIEW.com. For PhotographyREVIEW.com and PCPhotoREVIEW.com see amendment ." (http://www.consumerreview.com/channe...copyright.html)


(Merged from duplicate post)


Len

[another view]

I asked Photo-John to take a look at this thread.

Len, I deleted your other thread because it looks like you edited it to point people to this thread rather than leaving your message there.

[Len J]

I asked Photo-John to take a look at this thread.

Len, I deleted your other thread because it looks like you edited it to point people to this thread rather than leaving your message there.

Perfect...thanks.

Len

[mwfanelli2]

This problem was brought up here many, many years ago, a lot of the noise by yours truly. That was when the less onerous PR policy was made clear (and different). It caused a bit of a hub-hub here as well, but not even close to what is happening elsewhere. P-J jumped in quickly and saved the day!

[Photo-John]

I talked to Gregg at the bike sites about this yesterday. This comes up at regular intervals on this site. Because PhotographyREVIEW.com is a photography site, it has a different terms of use policy than our other sites. PhotographyREVIEW.com only claims the right to use images you post in the way that you posted them. So photos you post here won't get re-used without your permission. However, I just took a look and the section that refers to PR's special status is MIA. That also happens at regular intervals. So I will find out where it's gone to and get it restored. In any case, rest assured, you are not giving up any rights by posting photos on this site.

However, you do give up rights when you post your photos on our other sites. The terms of use policy being used on Mtbr.com, RoadbikeREVIEW.com, etc. is pretty standard. You don't give up all of your rights to images you post. All you do is grant us the right to use those photos in any way that we see fit. But you still have the right to use them as you see fit. Personally, I don't worry about it. For one, it is standard for Internet community sites. Second, the size of the photos I post means not much can really be done with them. And finally, the marketing value and pleasure I get from sharing my photos on those sites makes it worth it to me.

I hope that reassures you. And just to reemphasize - on PhotographyREVIEW.com this is not an issue. Because this site is for serious photographers for whom the iage is sacred and some of whom make a living with their photos, we only claim the right to show them as you posted them. We won't do anything else with your photos without your permission.

Oh yeah - I know there's been some concern and confusion over the term "moral rights." That is a European legal term. It has little or nothing to do with the standard definition of "moral." It basicall means the same thing as copyright with a little bit of an extension. But it's a legal term and should not be understood in the common, intuitive sense.

[SmartWombat]

It appears pretty clear that I would be giving up rights to my photos by posting them here.

As I understand it you're not giving up rights to the image, but licensing the use of your words and pictures to ConsumerREVIEW.com, PhotographyREVIEW.com and PCPhotoREVIEW.com for their purposes.
The main one of which is running these forums !

I would like it better if it explicitly said non-exclusive license.
But since it does not say it is an exclusive license, nothing seems to prevent you using it.
Since it is a license you should (as PJ confirms) still retain the copyright to the original image.

The "so-called moral rights" is something that is particular to the USA, compared to Europe.
When the United States signed the Berne Convention on copyright, it took the position that the Convention's "moral rights" provisions were addressed sufficiently by other statutes, it still does not completely recognize moral rights as part of copyright law.
In contrast in most of Europe it is not possible for authors to assign their moral rights. They can agree not to enforce them (and such terms are very common in contracts in Europe). There may also be a requirement for the author to 'assert' these moral rights before they can be enforced.
Asking for waiver of the moral rights is different from retaining those rights and waiving the enforcement of them.
It would be an interesting legal discussion, particularly for someone from outside the USA from a droit d'auteur jurisdiction in Europe where those rights can not be waived.

[Photo-John]

I would like it better if it explicitly said non-exclusive license.

That would be a good change. I don't see any reason why we can't update it to say "non-exclusive."

Thanks :-)

[Len J]

I talked to Gregg at the bike sites about this yesterday. This comes up at regular intervals on this site. Because PhotographyREVIEW.com is a photography site, it has a different terms of use policy than our other sites. PhotographyREVIEW.com only claims the right to use images you post in the way that you posted them. So photos you post here won't get re-used without your permission. However, I just took a look and the section that refers to PR's special status is MIA. That also happens at regular intervals. So I will find out where it's gone to and get it restored. In any case, rest assured, you are not giving up any rights by posting photos on this site.

However, you do give up rights when you post your photos on our other sites. The terms of use policy being used on Mtbr.com, RoadbikeREVIEW.com, etc. is pretty standard. You don't give up all of your rights to images you post. All you do is grant us the right to use those photos in any way that we see fit. But you still have the right to use them as you see fit. Personally, I don't worry about it. For one, it is standard for Internet community sites. Second, the size of the photos I post means not much can really be done with them. And finally, the marketing value and pleasure I get from sharing my photos on those sites makes it worth it to me.

I hope that reassures you. And just to reemphasize - on PhotographyREVIEW.com this is not an issue. Because this site is for serious photographers for whom the iage is sacred and some of whom make a living with their photos, we only claim the right to show them as you posted them. We won't do anything else with your photos without your permission.

Oh yeah - I know there's been some concern and confusion over the term "moral rights." That is a European legal term. It has little or nothing to do with the standard definition of "moral." It basicall means the same thing as copyright with a little bit of an extension. But it's a legal term and should not be understood in the common, intuitive sense.

Assuming the amendment is as you state (Which I believe), it does reassure me on this site.

Your logic for not applying this same standard to other ConsumerReview sites is reaching IMO. It doesn't cost ConsumerReview anything and potentially reduces the value of the site.............But I'll take that issue up there.

Thanks for the clarification. I look forward to seeing the amendment.

Len

[Len J]

As I understand it you're not giving up rights to the image, but licensing the use of your words and pictures to ConsumerREVIEW.com, PhotographyREVIEW.com and PCPhotoREVIEW.com for their purposes.
The main one of which is running these forums !

I

Perhaps I should have been clearer.

I don't believe that any site should have the right to sell my photos without my permission. Clearly, the Terms Of Use of the ConsumerReview sites gives them that particular right.

Len

[Photo-John]

Perhaps I should have been clearer.

I don't believe that any site should have the right to sell my photos without my permission. Clearly, the Terms Of Use of the ConsumerReview sites gives them that particular right.

Len-
I understand your concern. But the reality is, this is how Internet community sites work. There are some exceptions, of course. Because PhotographyREVIEW.com is a serious photography community, photos rights are treated differently than our other sites. But community sites couldn't operate without this type of "terms of use" policy. Essentially, when you post, you agree to the terms. So you have, in fact, given permission. But there's not intention to take advantage of you. It's just that in order to operate and be a fully functioning business, the sites need to be able to use the contributed material in a flexible way.

[Len J]

Len-
I understand your concern. But the reality is, this is how Internet community sites work. There are some exceptions, of course. Because PhotographyREVIEW.com is a serious photography community, photos rights are treated differently than our other sites. But community sites couldn't operate without this type of "terms of use" policy. Essentially, when you post, you agree to the terms. So you have, in fact, given permission. But there's not intention to take advantage of you. It's just that in order to operate and be a fully functioning business, the sites need to be able to use the contributed material in a flexible way.

John:

Sorry, but I just don't buy that.

Flexible? How hard is it to PM me and ask permission for the few times you actually use photos?...or worst case, when you want to sell them? You say that is not your intention, so why not put that in your terms of Use?

If there is no intention to take advantage of the rights to sell my photos, then why allow it in your rights? Seems like you are saying "We'll never do it, but we might want to some time?" Doesn't make sense to me.

Couldn't operate? In what way? Again, this seems like legalese to give ConsumerReview ultimate flexibility to do anything they may ever want to do........including sell the photos.

And you are right, the result of this will be less posting of pictures on other sites, which will decrease the value to the users of those sites. Go look at the commuter/touring forum on RBR, it's virtually a photo site devoted to biking.

Seems to me that there is a reasonable solution to this with some minor revision of your terms....without affecting your ability to run the site.

Intended to be with much respect...hope it comes across this way.

Len