|
dsafanda
Jan 3, 2003, 4:45 PM
Post #1 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
Someone pointed this out earlier and the post disappeared for some reason.
They pointed out the following terms regarding submitting photos to this site:
"...the only thing we ask is that we retain the rights to use these photographs in any way including but not limited to the following:
reselling, modifying, using for advertisements, and distributing."
Very interesting. Is this new? I never noticed it before. I had no idea that RC.com entertains the idea of reselling or distributing submitted material. I'm not sure if this even legal. I don't want to argue about it though. I will be deleting almost all of my photos thank you very much.
It seems like a strange policy...whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
jhundrup
Jan 3, 2003, 5:26 PM
Post #2 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2001
Posts: 410
|
You know, we don't have any intention of selling them or using them for another purpose, but let's say we used one for a shirt or something and then someone tried to sue us. Or let's say that one hit's the front page and someone decides that they want money for it. Everyone has to cover their bases these days, but if you feel that you need to delete them, that is your option. I hope that you reconsider.
Jared
|
|
|
|
|
jhundrup
Jan 3, 2003, 5:30 PM
Post #3 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2001
Posts: 410
|
On another note, I think that it would be fine to open a discussion on a more useable policy that would make photo submitters feel more comfortable.
This wasn't intended to scare anyone away.
Jared
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jan 3, 2003, 5:31 PM
Post #4 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
This has been a source of concern to me for some time, and I know that you in particular use your images professionally.
(edit: Photo Terms & Conditions updated!
see http://www.rockclimbing.com/photo/submit.php for a full detailing of all changes & such)
thanks for all your input, hopefully everyone will be pleased with the new legal verbiage.
[ This Message was edited by: tim on 2003-01-06 20:55 ]
[ This Message was edited by: tim on 2003-01-06 21:13 ]
|
|
|
|
|
sauron
Jan 3, 2003, 6:22 PM
Post #5 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2001
Posts: 1859
|
Those terms and conditions have been around for quite a while - and, have been a large part of why I haven't uploaded pictures to rc.com for a long while..
- d.
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jan 3, 2003, 6:25 PM
Post #6 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
The tone of my post was a bit more harsh than I intended. I should have presented it as a friendly suggestion to revaluate the terms and conditions. Fortunately, everyone seems to understand the concerns I meant to bring up.
That said...I do need to delete my photos. I look forward to submitting in the future if some middle ground is reached in terms of this issue.
[ This Message was edited by: dsafanda on 2003-01-03 10:28 ]
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Jan 3, 2003, 6:36 PM
Post #7 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
I was wondering when this was going to become a problem. To get people like Epperson, Rich, Powell, and a host of others to contribute as well as the others who already do (such as Gill, Hedge, etc.), there needs to be a better "fair use" policy for the site rather than something that can restrict, or water down the rights of people who actually sell their photos (both for a living, and for hobby).
What you need to ask yourselves is what the photos are for. Most photos are for people to share their experiences, attach to topos, spray, put a face to a name, etc., and let's face facts, the magazines don't always have the best photos. So it's a great resource visually for people to come by the site. But money (or the appearance of) always changes things.
For this site, I would recommend you keep the policy similar to what it is, but limit your own usage of the photos. The photos will only be used within this site on a non-exclusive basis. When and if possible, the photos will be attributed to the copyright holder. The copyright holder claims all liabilities that come with being the copyright holder. rc.com can have some modification rights which will allow for the photos to become thumbnails, or if you create a "hall of fame" and want to imprint the rights holders name on it. But when dealing with reprinting the photos in another medium (t-shirts, posters, screensavers, mugs, etc.) or in advertising (both online and off line) there should be a separate agreeement because now you are dealing with a more direct form of economic gain. And as I've seen too many times, once a dollar comes in on any enterprise, everyone immediately looks at that dollar and thinks they deserve a larger piece than they get.
I can't tell you how many other "filmmakers" I've met who try to put together a climbing film or a set of photos and think they're going to get wealthy off it. There is some money in climbing, but the sport is not as appealing to the general audience as most might perceive.
As you already know, it comes down to a balance. Ask more rights, get less photos. Restrict the amount of rights, get more photos. I would personally push more for the latter, because in my business dealings within climbing, I have found more often than not that the people are usually just excited to get their stuff out there to get the exposure when the opportunity arises. And you'd be surprised, even with an Epperson, sometimes you can work out a revenue sharing partnership rather than straight buy-outs. But that's a whole other conversation that if needed, I'd be more than happy to participate in and/or help negotiate.
Just my two cents.
[ This Message was edited by: mreardon on 2003-01-03 10:39 ]
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Jan 3, 2003, 6:43 PM
Post #8 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
Whoa! I should delete all of mine too. My photos are sought after world wide by the likes of (but not limited to), Rock And Ice, Climbing, Alpinist, and certain Ladies Magazines. If I don't get my photos off this site, I might never get ricjh off of them, and God knows I'll never be able to take any more shots.
Ahem... don't take yourselves too seriously people, rc.com is not going into the blackmarket climbing photo business. Why is everyone on this site suddenly a conspiracy theorist. Lighten up. Damn!
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jan 3, 2003, 6:58 PM
Post #9 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
I have my reasons. I don't really care if you belive they are valid or not.
Thanks for the helpful contribution to this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Jan 3, 2003, 7:16 PM
Post #10 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
Allow me to hang my head in shame.
I feel I am contributing to this discussion by pointing out that it is just another one of MANY threads lately that do nothing but complain and warn of the 'dark side' taking over this site. I just think this is all a little bit melodramatic. People must not have enough real life happening so they come here and make things up. It's like staring at accidents on the freeway.
If you genuinly have a big problem with this, or ANYTHING rather than waiting for some "middle ground" to somehow magically be reached by its own power, make a suggestion. Then we can all see these great photos that you have.
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Jan 3, 2003, 7:16 PM
Post #11 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Someone needs to relax a bit. Here's a beer Bro! Life's to short to worry about the small stuff. Drink it down and chill.
|
|
|
|
|
totigers
Jan 3, 2003, 7:33 PM
Post #12 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2002
Posts: 257
|
I understand that people would like a choice on how their property is dealt with when someone else is using it. So why not just give them the choice when you upload. I wouldn't mind seeing more of my pics uploaded for a few cents on the dollar but I also don't mind posting them for all to view for nothing. It is the pleasure of sharing that makes me want to post pic's here. But the prospect of someone else making a buck off my pleasures and not returning a cent on them, well I don't care much for that. So in the end, during the upload, just have a button to click that give you our permission to use the pic for other than postings and a button for postings only.
Now that is my two cents donated.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jan 3, 2003, 7:33 PM
Post #13 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Actually, we'll probably revise the guidelines on Monday when Trev gets back, because there is a happy middle ground that mreardon was gracious enough to lay out. I think Dave (dsafanda)'s concerns were quite pertinent, as he does use some of his photos professionally, and it is not legally expedient to be assigning full rights to an image to 2 separate entities!
I would suggest that, long around Monday or so, people who have been on the fence regarding photo submissions stop by, and we should have a more clearly worded and appropriate policy in place for your submissions.
Thanks much to mreardon for the legal advice, by the way. It is incredible the diversity of people who show up here, we could not possibly survive without your help.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Jan 3, 2003, 8:12 PM
Post #14 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
I do think that some pics should be protected. Some of us (kalcario, orange..., Jörg Z., ...) post beautiful pictures and a lot of them. They probably earn some money with their artistic work. I suppose they send the photos to please us and please themselves, but what if their photos were used to make some money and they don't get some back.
We could think : so why do they post? We can also think : giv'em some money back. (And I think money is $#!&).
The photos should be used only with the agreement of their authors. Even for a free non-commercial use. Just courtesy.
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Jan 3, 2003, 8:29 PM
Post #15 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
Yes, I guesse so. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
womble
Jan 6, 2003, 1:27 PM
Post #16 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 186
|
Hmm... the original post was mine, and I pulled it five minutes later because I've only just joined rockclimbing.com and thought it would be more appropriate to get the feel of the site before asking potentially inflammatory questions like this.
Now that it's out though, it a reference to the photo.net (got to the best photography-community site on the web) T&C might be constructive: http://www.photo.net/terms-of-use
They are very similar with the possible limitation on modifications. There is some truely incredible material on that site and I think that copyright issues would be more likely to arise there.
Regards,
Womble.
[ This Message was edited by: womble on 2003-01-06 05:29 ]
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Jan 6, 2003, 1:52 PM
Post #17 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Thanx to both of you for bringing it up then... It is a very valid concern.
FWIW... I have been contacted by several magazine editors and guide book authors asking to use photos in our gallery, some mine, mostly others. I told them that they need the permission of the "owner" (user who submitted them) before they could do anything. They contacted the owners, and the pictures were used... Some just wanted credit, and were happy to see their pics in print, others were paid $$$. So it has been our policy to consult with the submitter first.
I also was ruthlessly flamed at another site for trying to defend the rights of the "owners" who submit their pics here, when pics from our gallery were being "deeplinked" (copied) to another site.
Point is... Believe it or not, we do look out for you, and direct any and all inquiries about the use of pics to the submitters of those pics.
[ This Message was edited by: rrradam on 2003-01-06 06:00 ]
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jan 6, 2003, 3:06 PM
Post #18 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
And that is why we need to revise the policy.
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jan 6, 2003, 3:55 PM
Post #19 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
Womble pointed out Photo.net's terms as being similar to the current RC.com terms. To be honest, I don't think they are really that similar. There is no mention of distribution or reselling in the Photo.net verbage and it is much more clear when it comes to issues of ownership. It may infact be a good model for RC.com to follow...
"Intellectual Property Rights
You will not use the Site to violate anyone's copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights. By submitting material to the Site, You are representing that You are the owner of the material, or are making Your submission with the express consent of the owner. Submitting material that is the property of another, without the consent of its owner, is not only a violation of this agreement, but may also subject You to legal liability for infringement of copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property rights.
Ownership of Submitted Material
Submission of material to any photo.net forums, chat rooms, image critique areas, or photo sharing systems does not transfer the copyright to that material to photo.net. However, by submitting the material, You, or the copyright holder in case You are acting for another, grant photo.net a perpetual non-exclusive world-wide royalty-free license to modify, publish and reproduce that material for the purpose of operating, displaying, distributing and promoting photo.net. However, photo.net will not use Your materials without attributing them to You, without Your agreement. If You object to any modification by photo.net of Your materials (except for minor edits), or, in the case of forum postings, comments on photos, or comment on the Site's static content, to the use of Your materials separate from their original context, photo.net will either restore the original text and context, or delete the materials."
[ This Message was edited by: dsafanda on 2003-01-06 07:58 ]
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jan 7, 2003, 5:07 AM
Post #20 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Funny you should mention photo.net... since I worked on that site briefly as well.
Our reworked grant of permissions is structured similarly to p.net's but with a bit more clarification as to intent and responsibilities. I hope it will suit everyone much better than the old 'pretend legalese'.
THanks to Dave and Mike Reardon for all their help, suggestions, and pointing this out.
--t
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Jan 7, 2003, 5:52 AM
Post #21 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
Personally, I don't care in the least if shots of me are spread around, even if I get no money for it. I agree with those terms totally. Nothing wrong with them at all.
|
|
|
|
|
sunsation
Jan 7, 2003, 6:24 AM
Post #22 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 16, 2002
Posts: 184
|
Well done. I am happy to see the policy has been changed. Up until now, I have not posted any pictures on the sight because of the old policy. It had nothing to do with thinking my pics might be worth money but more to do with keeping my doors open. Under the old policy, if I were to submit a pic, it would belong to rc.com (that's how I interpreted it anyway.) and I didn't want to be forced to give away my pics just because I wanted to share them. Thanks everyone for addressing this and sorting it out so quickly!
|
|
|
|
|
trevor
Anonymous Poster
Jan 7, 2003, 6:27 AM
Post #23 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 0
|
Thanks Tim for getting this together so fast. The policy represents RC.com's true intent now. As the owner, I have often let things be open rather than restrictive. It's been simply "trust me." Although that has worked for a long time and I hope I have never compromised that trust, we needed to change with our size.
I hope we will start to see a lot more photos in the future.
Thanks,
Trevor
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Jan 7, 2003, 4:19 PM
Post #24 of 24
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
Thanks Tim for driving this through. Nice work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
