ThanksVision
Member
SteelAttack said:
I still don't have access to my own post history, unless I'm missing something...
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New NeoGaf TOS
- Thread starter jax (old)
- Start date
- Status
I still don't have access to my own post history, unless I'm missing something...
Seriously, I should attempt to exploit their politeness for monetary gain, when they could just as easily either do the article anyway without permission and at worst have an eventual C&D compliance after they get all their pageviews anyway, or just not do the article to begin with?
It's mutually beneficial for Kotaku, which gets an article of interest to its userbase, and NeoGAF, which gets positive exposure and further legitimacy as a significant gaming community (yes, really, from Kotaku). Just look at a few days ago, when Destructoid used a few cherrypicked sensationalist responses from a several thousand reply thread about Uncharted 3 review scores to paint NeoGAF in the worst possible light. The Kotaku piece is a good thing and they're cool for wanting to start a series along these lines.
It's mutually beneficial for Kotaku, which gets an article of interest to its userbase, and NeoGAF, which gets positive exposure and further legitimacy as a significant gaming community (yes, really, from Kotaku). Just look at a few days ago, when Destructoid used a few cherrypicked sensationalist responses from a several thousand reply thread about Uncharted 3 review scores to paint NeoGAF in the worst possible light. The Kotaku piece is a good thing and they're cool for wanting to start a series along these lines.
blame space
Banned
pushing the NeoGAF brand to heights previously thought impossible
It might not be a bad idea to post a sticky with this info or something. I saw references to GAF selling out to Kotaku, etc. so it's confusing as it absolutely does seem like something they'd have to pay to run. Initially when I came across the post on their site, I thought maybe scoularis was a Kotaku staffer and was eliciting responses secretly.EviLore said:
I imagine a lot of long-time posters are on the fence about more and more mainstream exposure rather than just nods and tip of the caps because for years it felt a bit like we were a part of sort of exclusive club. At the same time, I am such a huge fan of the site that it's cool others can get exposed to it.
blame space
Banned
Londa your black-GAF banner is not art
slidewinder
Banned
GAF just needs to grant each of its users rights to all the other users' submissions, then.besada said:
- Why is attribution not mandatory?
- Why is the license transferable?
- Why does the wording not indicate a hard distinction between works posted on GAF and works not posted on GAF?
- Why were we not notified of the revised ToS?
- Why is it applicable to posts made before the revised ToS?
- Why does it apply to PMs?
I understand the need for legal clarity so that posts on NeoGAF can be used in places other than NeoGAF. In that manner, I'm not really opposed to what this revision is trying to accomplish. I just think that the manner in which it is being executed is unusual and detrimental. Why are posts not merely licensed under a CC-BY-SA arrangement?
- Why is the license transferable?
- Why does the wording not indicate a hard distinction between works posted on GAF and works not posted on GAF?
- Why were we not notified of the revised ToS?
- Why is it applicable to posts made before the revised ToS?
- Why does it apply to PMs?
I understand the need for legal clarity so that posts on NeoGAF can be used in places other than NeoGAF. In that manner, I'm not really opposed to what this revision is trying to accomplish. I just think that the manner in which it is being executed is unusual and detrimental. Why are posts not merely licensed under a CC-BY-SA arrangement?
wandering goat
Member
Not that it makes much difference to me, but for clarity, given the comments that the site only retains the url to images, does that mean that any images made/posted by users here cannot be used, sold, transferred, etc. to others, thus leaving only text as the thing to "worry" about? Or is there some kind of legal justification to the right for Neogaf to use images posted here anyway?
What the hell is this black GAF logo bullshit? Is it a logo only for black people on GAF? Is the the GAF logo with a different color scheme?
Either way, I sincerely hope everyone that posted in this thread or any thread on GAF burns in hell for eternity for their sins.
-God Emit
Either way, I sincerely hope everyone that posted in this thread or any thread on GAF burns in hell for eternity for their sins.
-God Emit
rainking187
Member
EviLore said:
If I'm interpreting this correctly are you saying that if Kotaku wants to repost something from here they can just go ahead and do it? No attempt will even be made to ask the original poster for permission? Doesn't sound cool to me.
rainking187
Member
EviLore said:
I don't know what that's supposed to mean.
Yeah, news services do it ALL the time although now with Twitter, they often will credit the poster since it's fairly easy to find that info out. EW or CNN and the like will often just repost comments to news stories as "fan reactions" and say "an internet poster said" or whatever.Kinitari said:
GillianSeed79
Member
Sharing content isn't uncommon for mainstream media news sites btw. It's how the Associated Press works. It's also not uncommon for photos, packages and other content to be shared. When a really good picture or article gets reproduced a billion times on TV or your morning paper, the person who created it doesn't get extra money or anything. A lot if times credit will also only be given to the publication itself, i.e. “The New York times reported today...”
Since there's no real AP-style service for videogame news in the enthusiast press, Kotaku actually probably went about it the right by asking permission.
Since there's no real AP-style service for videogame news in the enthusiast press, Kotaku actually probably went about it the right by asking permission.
. This tos wasn't up before I created the logo. Also I don't remember this site being called blackgaf.For writing GAF:
http://tinypaste.com/
Allows you to link to your work from here without any TOS fiddliness. Allows you to set an auto-prune, so it deletes itself from the internet after a certain period of time. And most importantly, allows you to set a password and make it non-public, which means the work will not count as having been published.
I will be using this from now on.
http://tinypaste.com/
Allows you to link to your work from here without any TOS fiddliness. Allows you to set an auto-prune, so it deletes itself from the internet after a certain period of time. And most importantly, allows you to set a password and make it non-public, which means the work will not count as having been published.
I will be using this from now on.
I was a bit of a snarky bitch in the other thread, so I just wanna clarify my thoughts:
I think the idea is fine.
I think how it was introduced was less than desirable. And I love GAF, and I love how Evilore has grown it over the years, but I think a simple acknowledgment that this wasn't handled so great would soothe a lot of this over.
Simply consulting and asking posters before syndicating their writing to other sites would make this all better in my book. I mean, if Kotaku wants to post anything from GAF in such a wholesales way, they HAVE to at least ask NeoGAF/Evilore - and it would not kill Evilore to PM the poster in question and simply ask.
I think if asked people would, 99% of the time, be totally fine with it and would feel respected. But if anything I wrote appeared anywhere else without my permission like that, I would feel rubbed the wrong way.
I think the idea is fine.
I think how it was introduced was less than desirable. And I love GAF, and I love how Evilore has grown it over the years, but I think a simple acknowledgment that this wasn't handled so great would soothe a lot of this over.
Simply consulting and asking posters before syndicating their writing to other sites would make this all better in my book. I mean, if Kotaku wants to post anything from GAF in such a wholesales way, they HAVE to at least ask NeoGAF/Evilore - and it would not kill Evilore to PM the poster in question and simply ask.
I think if asked people would, 99% of the time, be totally fine with it and would feel respected. But if anything I wrote appeared anywhere else without my permission like that, I would feel rubbed the wrong way.
Squirrel Killer
Member
Because that way, if IP is re-used without attribution, NeoGAF can't be sued. I imagine in practice, uses will be attributed if only to avoid backlash.Fugu said:
So NeoGAF can re-use IP through whatever legal framework they feel the need to establish. For example, perhaps EvilLore spins off the Off-Topic section into it's own company, he could transfer the IP to the new spin off that way.Fugu said:
It does now. "such submissions" was changed to "the messages posted or private messages sent on NeoGAF.com"Fugu said:
"Also be aware that these terms are subject to change at any time without notification."Fugu said:
Because tracking which IP is covered under which version of the TOS is unworkable given the amount of discreet works covered.Fugu said:
At the bare minimum, a forum needs certain rights to your IP (which includes PMs) to even display them to the intended recipient.Fugu said:
Because that would restrict NeoGAF in ways that EvilLore doesn't want it to be restricted. I can't remember where I read it, but sometime in the last couple of years, a part of the CBC decided to use CC works more but found that compliance with all the various requirements was too much of a hassle, especially in "commercial" use. They reverted back to paying for works licensed by Big Content.Fugu said:
echoshifting
Banned
Cyan said:
Wow, thanks for this link! I've never heard of this.
Squirrel Killer
Member
IT. IS. NOT. OWNED. BY. GAF.Londa said:
You still have the copyright to it, GAF just has a license to re-use it.
Explain to me how a person posting a image they created before the new tos has given gaf a license to their art work at any given time without getting the owners consent?Squirrel Killer said:
Even on deviantart they do not allow this or use the works created there unless they ask the creator.
Londa said:
It's probably not. You could likely successfully sue GAF if it used original artwork (as opposed to derivative artwork) that existed prior to the TOS modifications. Most courts aren't going to recognize a clause that modifies the contract retroactively without requiring a further assertion of acceptance.
Of course, once you found out about it, you continued posting on GAF, asserting your acceptance of the new clause in its adhesion contract. If you really want to make a case that you don't accept the terms, you'd need to stop posting immediately.
echoshifting
Banned
Kinitari said:
Well, he's probably right.
charlequin said:
No direct ability, and no exclusionary ability. However, as a holder of a valid transferable license, it would be possible to interfere with the original owner's attempts to sell other licenses to third parties. I like to think that the NeoGAF wouldn't act in such terribly bad faith, but I can understand why some people might feel uncomfortable.
Because they knew people would flip out, despite nothing REALLY changing. Too bad they forgot about that one guy who runs a script that checks the ToS for changes every 5 seconds. There's guys doing even more insane things than that behind the scenes, too.
Oh, glorious internet.
Also, WHAT IS THE BLACK GAF LOGO THING?
lawblob said:
And this is a good philosophy for anywhere on the Internet, not just GAF. When I upload photos I limit their sizes and I watermark them in the lower left or right corner. Anyone is free to copy and repost them in unmodified form. But if I find someone has reposted them and removed the watermark, which has happened, I send them a note asking them to put it back. If they don't, I send them a takedown. That's pretty much all I can do. I mitigate the potential damage by keeping resolution low.
Dude, posts on GAF have been getting reposted to a hundred different locations and other forums for years, who gives a shit. What are you going to post the formula to achieving zero-point energy or something?
Would you honestly ever say 'no i don't want that post of mine being linked somewhere for all to see'? Makes zero sense.
Would you honestly ever say 'no i don't want that post of mine being linked somewhere for all to see'? Makes zero sense.
Why shouldn't NeoGAF be sued for licensing out content that they didn't create without attribution?Squirrel Killer said:
I understand the effect of the provision. I don't understand how that is relevant to allowing content to be used on other websites.
See above. It's also just poor PR, and I don't think that a provision like that would do well under scrutiny. "I can change the rules because I said I might change the rules"?
While a grey area certainly exists, there are a large number of posts that are definitely backdated so far that they wouldn't be relevant to this issue.
Yeah, sure, but that doesn't include licensing and distribution rights.
Sure it would. That's specifically why I like it, because it provides the posters with more leverage than they get right now.
Squirrel Killer said:
I don't think it even has that, not in a totally free way anyway.
I think everytime you post there's an implicit giving of permission to reproduce that content here in the context it was posted in. But passing that content to third parties - commercially or otherwise - I think is a different matter. The relationship between the user and Neogaf isn't a relationship between the user and Kotaku or other sites.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see how it would stand up if it was ever tested, for content posted before the ToS change. I kind of doubt it would after either, depending.
Anyway, I think and hope we're talking hypothetically. Whatever about the misjudgment here on the part of NeoGaf though, I'm really amazed Kotaku would run with this. They should have questioned whether permission was given by the poster, and whether there was a right to syndicate content (which IMO I don't think there was). It seems like it never entered anyone's head? I was pretty neutral on Kotaku before, at worst, but I'm not sure I'll be giving Kotaku 'business' again here (i.e. posting about and linking to any stories from there).
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
The only time I use the sidebar like that I will just hit quote anyways and then delete the contents of the quote. There's no logical reason to do it with the system as-is, but I just got into the habit a long time ago.CoffeeJanitor said:
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Squirrel Killer said:
That's all good.
I'd only add that one of the reasons that a clause like this crops all the time in TOSs is because of the rather crude way the law deals (or seems to deal) with the internet. Essentially, each act of transmission of something on the internet can be (and often/sometimes is) seen as an act of publication. So, as you read this post, it has been published to you by (a) NeoGAF (b) an ISP (c) possibly the home network of the guy next door if you are freeloading. And probably a whole bunch of other people.
If such republication were not permitted, then the internet would not work. Or at least the whole internet would be illegal. So that's why so many TOSs have a clause like this. And if NeoGAF was not allowed to licence publication rights, then nobody could legally read any of your posts.
I'm not saying that's 'good' law - it's a very crude way of looking at things - and it carries the problem that there's no real legal distinction between acts of transmission and acts of republication (as on e.g. Kotaku).
But that's pretty well the way it is - hence the continual fuss over whether ISPs have any liability for 'publishing' child porn for example.
It is all in a bit of a legal turmoil at the moment and will probably take years to sort out properly. Meanwhile, since lawyers have to be cautious beasts to protect their clients, this sort of term creeps into what would otherwise be perfectly straightforward TOSs. That's not anybody's fault, it is just the way it all worked out so far.
- Status