New terms of use feedback

KarmaGarda

That's interesting. We might need confirmation on what this refers to. If I use IMG tags that renders as an image on the forum can they use that? As mentioned, surely not, but might be worth getting it clarified. They must be just referring to any image you have attached and therefore sits on boards.ie servers?

Fajitas!

stunt_penguin wrote: »

Uh, guys, there is no uploading of images to the boards.ie server so we are not submitting images to their server, only links to the images.

Whenever you post a link to one of your pics here then they own the right to publish and archive the link, not the photograph.

Er...

By posting any Material on or through Boards.ie, you grant us a limited license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Materials in connection with Boards.ie or the promotion thereof.

Material =/= link.

It's not specific so can easily mean the image posted.

Covey

stunt_penguin wrote: »

Uh, guys, there is no uploading of images to the boards.ie server so we are not submitting images to their server, only links to the images.

Whenever you post a link to one of your pics here then they own the right to publish and archive the link, not the photograph.

tl;dr : calm down

Well, you may be right or not as the case may be.

A submission is not defined.
Copying is automatically authorised by the person submitting ( also not defined).
Servers are not mentioned.

Clarification is urgently needed.

projectmayhem

stunt_penguin wrote: »

Uh, guys, there is no uploading of images to the boards.ie server so we are not submitting images to their server, only links to the images.

Whenever you post a link to one of your pics here then they own the right to publish and archive the link, not the photograph.

tl;dr : calm down

The wording says "by making submission to us" which does not necessarily refer to "uploading to our servers". It's slightly ambiguous and I certainly don't assume boards are planning on using photos submitted here for malicious purposes, but it is too ambiguous for me to want to post images here (sad because I just uploaded some to flickr etc. today I wanted to share).

While I wouldn't suspect DeVore & co. of wanting to "own" our photos, what happens if daft.ie wade in with their share of the company and use these T's & C's to use the images to promote properties on their site? Not unthinkable in this day & age.

GavinZac

KarmaGarda wrote: »

That's interesting. We might need confirmation on what this refers to. If I use IMG tags that renders as an image on the forum can they use that? As mentioned, surely not, but might be worth getting it clarified. They must be just referring to any image you have attached and therefore sits on boards.ie servers?

Fajitas!

projectmayhem wrote: »

The wording says "by making submission to us" which does not necessarily refer to "uploading to our servers". It's slightly ambiguous and I certainly don't assume boards are planning on using photos submitted here for malicious purposes, but it is too ambiguous for me to want to post images here (sad because I just uploaded some to flickr etc. today I wanted to share).

While I wouldn't suspect DeVore & co. of wanting to "own" our photos, what happens if daft.ie wade in with their share of the company and use these T's & C's to use the images to promote properties on their site? Not unthinkable in this day & age.

Or indeed further down the line, if the current staff members have moved, and the new staff take a alternative approach to the forum.

Covey

Fajitas! wrote: »

Or indeed further down the line, if the current staff members have moved, and the new staff take a alternative approach to the forum.

The current approach is bad as is. It's clearly defined in the T&C's. No "assurances" can override those

Rb

Yet another classic case of Boards.ie LTD looking after the business at the cost of the community, something which the powers that be appear to be only interested in, despite many, many attempts in "feedback" to make it appear in favour of the "community".

I don't put any financial value on my images as of yet, but I would be disgusted to find Boards using one of them for their own benefit. I love the Photo forum, lurk quite a bit and post when I feel I've something to contribute, but will happily move elsewhere if Boards.ie LTD can't do something to ensure the safety of the images posted/linked here.

But hey, at least they're making more money than ever (probably), so everythings gravy :rolleyes:

Chorcai

Oh dear, seems like the saying if you dont want your stuff taken/coppied/used etc dont post/upload it to the internets is getting more true by the day.

Masada

Ouch, This is defo a wakeup call for all those "I agree" buttons we click without bothering to read the terms.

Until I am reassured that my property will remain my own after posting here, I'm afraid i woudlnt be comfortable with posting any more pics in any way (link or attachment) on the forum.

Makes for a pretty poor Photography forum too huh.,

Covey

Fajitas! wrote: »

At the same time, a photography forum without images could prove quite an interesting concept.

Well yes, If it was stated like that.

ACD nice to see your thanks there. Instead of morphing into whatever (even more) watered down photography forum this is becoming , why not be pro-active and progress this place somewhat. Or is that beyond you?

homer simpson

Right folks i am all confused by all this busines of boards having the rights to my photos, my photos are not really worth stealing but if it happens id be very annoyed, im usually not the best at understanding these terms and conditions ect, but TBH if they say they have total rights over any photos posted i won't be posting photos any more, not that it would really matter too much.

I habe enjoyed posting pics here as it is a great way of finding out how to improve my own work (as ive only had my cam since november) and also a great way of asking peope what settings they have used and trying them out for myself and thus improving my own photos, basicly its themain reason i use boards and if i can't do that any more there ain't much point comming here in future

KarmaGarda

GavinZac wrote: »

Sure that's exactly what I was saying but in a shorter form! Img is just a group of letters, it was just a term of phrase. If you want sure I could be picky too and say something like

"sure <img /> itself is just a html tag and doesn't render as anything either"

But I won't . Anyway, regardless of that I won't be posting any photos until they clarify the TOU.

Rb

Funnily enough I previously would have trusted Boards, however they certainly showed their true colours when they were found to be twittering links to what they deemed the best/most entertaining/funniest personal issues posts(where, unfortunately, a lot go to actually get advice on **** they seemingly can't talk to others about). When I informed one of the posters in PI that their post had been linked on twitter by Boards itself, I was then lifetime banned from the entire Personal Issues forum by DeVore.

I've nothing against DeV personally but that's f-ing shady at the very best. With these new terms and conditions in place, I wouldn't trust them to protect the users images here whatsoever. I'd be interested to know whether the rest of the users on the site, who aren't so image-copyright savvy, are aware of the ramifications of the new T&C's. How surprised they may be to find their "Know Your Nerds" pictures appearing on a Boards.ie LTD Tv ad!

Covey

KarmaGarda wrote: »

They must be just referring to any image you have attached and therefore sits on boards.ie servers?

They may and as many of us have said thats unclear.

However taking rights of attached images is totally out of order in any case.

GavinZac

KarmaGarda wrote: »

Sure that's exactly what I was saying but in a shorter form! Img is just a group of letters, it was just a term of phrase. If you want sure I could be picky too and say something like

"sure <img /> itself is just a html tag and doesn't render as anything either"

But I won't . Anyway, regardless of that I won't be posting any photos until they clarify the TOU.

I think I was being a bit too technical an "IMG element" actually is indeed what is rendered, according to the Document Object Model. But regardless, you are right, but I am emphasising what you're saying, that you're inputing text not image data.

GavinZac

Covey wrote: »

However taking rights of attached images is totally out of order in any case.

Actually I think that's fair enough, if its declared up front, then it seems pretty valid to me that they can place conditions on images that they are (paying for) hosting.

Obviously I wouldn't be making boards.ie my first port of call as a place to host an image but having run a vBulletin board in the past (albeit nowhere on the scale of boards) I am aware of how quickly those attached images can take up space compared to the usual plain text.

smelltheglove

Rb wrote: »

Funnily enough I previously would have trusted Boards, however they certainly showed their true colours when they were found to be twittering links to what they deemed the best/most entertaining/funniest personal issues posts(where, unfortunately, a lot go to actually get advice on **** they seemingly can't talk to others about). When I informed one of the posters in PI that their post had been linked on twitter by Boards itself, I was then lifetime banned from the entire Personal Issues forum by DeVore.
!

Seriously??? I was wondering why I had hits on a flickr img due to a twitter, I cant remember the details but I knew it was coming from boards for some reason, maybe it was the name of a boards mod or something. As I dont have twitter I couldnt look into it at the time.

Covey

GavinZac wrote: »

Actually I think that's fair enough, if its declared up front, then it seems pretty valid to me that they can place conditions on images that they are (paying for) hosting.

Agreed, if it's made absolutely clear to the poster not in some small print or once off post (i.e. at the time of posting).

KarmaGarda

GavinZac wrote: »

I think I was being a bit too technical an "IMG element" actually is indeed what is rendered, according to the Document Object Model. But regardless, you are right, but I am emphasising what you're saying, that you're inputing text not image data.

Don't worry you weren't being too technical at all. I write web applications for a living so I know all about tags and rendering etc . So we'll leave it there and not get into the nitty gritty of what happens from A to B.

On an on topic note has anyone actually brought this up with the bright button that came up with these ridiculous terms?

CabanSail

This will not only affect this forum but the whole Arts Category on Boards. The Creative Writing people would probably have more issues than us as they would be posting their words which would be directly on the server.

The Mods here can & will raise this issue on behalf of this Forum, the CMods will probably do the same for the Category.

While I hope that this is a problem which can be sorted out & modified it is of real concern as the wording in the T&C's as they stand would make too many wary of posting images.

pixbyjohn

Below are 2 paragraphs of the Flickr T & C on Yahoo. Would this wording be acceptable to Boards.ie Photography members ? I have underlined some text.

(b) With respect to Content you elect to post for inclusion in publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups or that consists of photos or other graphics you elect to post to any other publicly accessible area of the Services, you grant Yahoo! a world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish such Content on the Services solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted, or, in the case of photos or graphics, solely for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted to the Services. This licence exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Services and shall be terminated at the time you delete such Content from the Services.
(c) With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Yahoo! the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and licence 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.

Covey

KarmaGarda wrote: »

On an on topic note has anyone actually brought this up with the bright button that came up with these ridiculous terms?

Away you go... and good luck.

GavinZac

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Below are 2 paragraphs of the Flickr T & C on Yahoo. Would this wording be acceptable to Boards.ie Photography members ? I have underlined some text.

Flickr's copyright policies are perfect and I'd imagine are one of the strongest reasons for their dominance. Just enough so that you can't sue them for displaying the image you just uploaded, and no more.

Fajitas!

KarmaGarda wrote: »

On an on topic note has anyone actually brought this up with the bright button that came up with these ridiculous terms?

Yes, thread on the feedback forum, can't miss it

Covey

CabanSail wrote: »

This will not only affect this forum but the whole Arts Category on Boards. The Creative Writing people would probably have more issues than us as they would be posting their words which would be directly on the server.

The Mods here can & will raise this issue on behalf of this Forum, the CMods will probably do the same for the Category.

While I hope that this is a problem which can be sorted out & modified it is of real concern as the wording in the T&C's as they stand would make too many wary of posting images.

It's refreshing to see a Mod express an opinion and not apply more superglue to that fence. Thanks.

Rb

smelltheglove wrote: »

Seriously??? I was wondering why I had hits on a flickr img due to a twitter, I cant remember the details but I knew it was coming from boards for some reason, maybe it was the name of a boards mod or something. As I dont have twitter I couldnt look into it at the time.

Very serious unfortunately. The issue was raised at the time (can't link as I'm permanently banned from Feedback by, surprise surprise, DeV himself) and it was downplayed and basically dismissed as "If people are going to post stuff on the internet, they shouldn't be surprised if it ends up elsewhere", which was Boards.ie LTD's line on the matter.

So, I'd suspect, if you agree to the T&C's here and post your "stuff" (your pics) here, you shouldn't be surprised if they go use it in a matter they feel will benefit Boards.ie LTD and the pockets of the people behind it. I'm sure this matter will be downplayed by the powers that be and those who, for some unknown reason as it doesn't appear financial, support the company no matter what they do.

KarmaGarda

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Below are 2 paragraphs of the Flickr T & C on Yahoo. Would this wording be acceptable to Boards.ie Photography members ? I have underlined some text.

(b) With respect to Content you elect to post for inclusion in publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups or that consists of photos or other graphics you elect to post to any other publicly accessible area of the Services, you grant Yahoo! a world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish such Content on the Services solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted, or, in the case of photos or graphics, solely for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted to the Services. This licence exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Services and shall be terminated at the time you delete such Content from the Services.
(c) With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Yahoo! the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and licence 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.

That's acceptable yeah. Basically the above is required to allow them to display your photos, but solely for the purpose of the service they provide, and only for the duration of your content on their server. Pix.ie states something very similar.

Hugh_C

Looks to me like the boards Jedi have just filched a standard T&C document without regard to the special needs of the creative fora (with all due respect to previous conversations in here, photography is a creative pursuit).

There is a 3rd Party content clause though

8.2 Third Party Content

The inclusion of any content from other sites, either quoted directly or linked to (“Third Party Content”) on Boards.ie does not imply our affiliation or endorsement of such Third Party Content.

...

Because we do not control third party sites, you agree that we are not responsible for any such Third Party Content and that this is the sole responsibility of the person from which such Third Party Content originated, and we have no obligation to monitor such Third Party Content.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve the right, but shall have no obligation, to pre-screen, filter, remove, refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Third Party Content in whole or part at any time for any reason or no reason with or without notice and with no liability of any kind.

Doesn't look like there's any problem then linking to pix.ie or flickr or wherever in terms of my rights to my material. boards may decide not to allow it be shown though.

Darragh

Folks, thank you all for the additional feedback.

Just FYI, the first day we had been aware of our omission (or mistake, whatever you want to call it) in the TOU with regard to the Photography forum, I opened a thread here looking for feedback. I was keeping an eye on that one, so missed this until now.

I'm really glad that pixbyjohn submitted alternative, constructive wording for the necessary amendment to the TOU (thank you) - Truckle did so over here also, from Pix.ie and this will be our basis for the wording we will use to amend this term to allow you to be comfortable posting your photos. These sort of posts are very helpful - the tinfoil hat ones less so

In other words, if you write below - in legalese or non-legalese what you want us to say about how your rights to your photos will remain with you, I will prioritise this amendment and its inclusion. The sooner, the better, thanks.

Please note that we're very open to dialogue with you on this - that's the reason for the mammoth thread over on Feedback where I've already been addressing this issue and talking amendments with the relevant people.

So, if you want change, put your suggestions below. Your complaints are being heard and we'll work with you as much as we can to make the best of the situation.

Cheers and thanks

Darragh

smelltheglove

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Below are 2 paragraphs of the Flickr T & C on Yahoo. Would this wording be acceptable to Boards.ie Photography members ? I have underlined some text.
.

It may not work here though as as far as I recall you can only edit posts for a limited time, so you could not go back and take a photo out of an old post after say 2 weeks, it is there as long as boards have the thread online.

Yes I have just looked back to an image I posted a week ago, I can no longer edit the post.

Covey

"8.2 Third Party Content

The inclusion of any content from other sites, either quoted directly or linked to (“Third Party Content”) on Boards.ie does not imply our affiliation or endorsement of such Third Party Content.

...

Because we do not control third party sites, you agree that we are not responsible for any such Third Party Content and that this is the sole responsibility of the person from which such Third Party Content originated, and we have no obligation to monitor such Third Party Content.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we reserve the right, but shall have no obligation, to pre-screen, filter, remove, refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Third Party Content in whole or part at any time for any reason or no reason with or without notice and with no liability of any kind."

The basic thrust of that Hugh is a disclaimer from content from third parties and the ability of boards to reject such information and not be legally liable for such. However, that does not restrict in any way their use in the paragraph quoted at the start where Boards would deem this in their interests.

CabanSail

I have brought this to the attention of the Admins, but it seems that Darragh was already onto it.

Covey

CabanSail wrote: »

I have brought this to the attention of the Admins, but it seems that Darragh was already onto it.

Really, it's the 4th of January and these were posted on the 23rd December. The alternatives were all publically available to anyone who cared to look. Little wonder he needs the tin hat

Valentia

I must have been reading and posting last night as it was being merged. The post sequence is not as I was seeing it. Yes, I was sober. As a judge your honour!

Valentia

Anyway, is there any reason why this can't be sorted in the next day or two? Looking at the Flickr examples it seems fairly straightforward.

As Covey said, it's the fact that the conditions as is were allowed in in the first place is a little worrying. Well more than a little even.

Covey

Quite bizzare that a thread to discuss the impact of the changes on the Photography forum is moved away from that forum.

Doesn't instill any confidence in Boards tbh.

CabanSail

Valentia wrote: »

I must have been reading and posting last night as it was being merged. The post sequence is not as I was seeing it. Yes, I was sober. As a judge your honour!

The Merge only happened this morning. It was to combine it with the original thread that had slipped down a few pages. Everything should still be in the correct sequence.

It is being looked into and all feedback is being taken into consideration. I hope this will be addressed quickly too, but as mere Mods we can just take things to the Admin level & alert them to the concerns being raised.

Covey wrote: »

Quite bizzare that a thread to discuss the impact of the changes on the Photography forum is moved away from that forum.

Doesn't instill any confidence in Boards tbh.

The thread has not been moved away from the Photography Forum, it's still here. It is just that the thread you started has been combined with the original thread about this matter. The transition happens at Post #21.

Covey

CabanSail wrote: »

The thread has not been moved away from the Photography Forum, it's still here. It is just that the thread you started has been combined with the original thread about this matter. The transition happens at Post #21.

No. On my screen it says "moved" and updates don't bring it up to the top of the photography forum. As I said quite bizarre

AnCatDubh

Covey wrote: »

No. On my screen it says "moved" and updates don't bring it up to the top of the photography forum. As I said quite bizarre

hmmnnnnn.... but your update has just brought it up to the top of the forum

KarmaGarda

Covey wrote: »

No. On my screen it says "moved" and updates don't bring it up to the top of the photography forum. As I said quite bizarre

It's been moved/merged into this thread, which is now part of the photography forum instead. So when you click on the old link you get redirected to this thread.

AnCatDubh

KarmaGarda wrote: »

It's been moved/merged into this thread, which is now part of the photography forum instead. So when you click on the old link you get redirected to this thread.

Ah, that explains it.

Covey

AnCatDubh wrote: »

hmmnnnnn.... but your update has just brought it up to the top of the forum

Sorry, my misunderstanding

pixbyjohn

smelltheglove wrote: »

It may not work here though as as far as I recall you can only edit posts for a limited time, so you could not go back and take a photo out of an old post after say 2 weeks, it is there as long as boards have the thread online.

Yes I have just looked back to an image I posted a week ago, I can no longer edit the post.

Rachel, thats a minor problem in the scheme of things

Covey

pixbyjohn wrote: »

Rachel, thats a minor problem in the scheme of things

I'd consider it a major problem if you can't remove your photos

Third_Echelon

I hope this gets sorted... As others have said, if we can't post here, then what's the point?

I haven't been active on the photography forum for a while for various reasons, but have always been reading it etc. Hopefully we can keep it going as its always a great forum..

nonsequitir

Removing the photos is just one step. I would suspect any self respecting online service will have backups with your content and so removing the active instance is merely a token protest unless it's followed up with a 'Delete all my stuff and confirm in kind or I'll be forced to take legal action on your ass' type of solicitor's note.

Just sayin' like!

:-)

.Longshanks.

Covey wrote: »

I'd consider it a major problem if you can't remove your photos

If you really wanted to, you could (on flickr anyways) replace the photo with an identical image. This would kill the link back to sites like boards.ie

Valentia

Well? Have they been changed yet? :pac:

smelltheglove

Longshanks100 wrote: »

If you really wanted to, you could (on flickr anyways) replace the photo with an identical image. This would kill the link back to sites like boards.ie

True but not really a solution to the problem, it would make the photography forum more of an irritation to work with, it is something that boards should look after. I mean what would be the point of re-wording t&c to match flickr but not allowing you to remove the images as it says in the t&c.

Considering the current t&c I wouldn't be surprised if something seemingly so minor would be overlooked!