Support NeoGAF

[butter_stick]

Does this give Evilore the rights to publish "NeoGAF: The Best Of", a hardback collection of excerpts from the site sold for only $30?

 

[Alucrid]

Oh Shit oh Shit oh Shit

All the pictures of me in my skinny jeans

Oh Shit oh shit oh shit

 

[phisheep]

Gah, I told dreweyes I'd get the next wave of neogaf shirts up today, because spreadshirt's running a halloween free shipping promotion. Today's a bit overloaded ;b

I think we all love you really. It's probably just aftermath of destructoid making people hypersensitive.

 

[Maddness]

Does this give Evilore the rights to publish "NeoGAF: The Best Of", a hardback collection of excerpts from the site sold for only $30?

We'd need to get the rights for floating Sam Jackson Bishop head for the cover first.

 

[Cyan]

I think we all love you really. It's probably just aftermath of destructoid making people hypersensitive.

Well, and some of us are really big fans of Creative-GAF and slightly panicked.

But I think things will all work out ok.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

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?

"Also be aware that these terms are subject to change at any time without notification."

More seriously, I would imagine that if NeoGAF really did re-use your work (in a way that wasn't allowed under the old TOS) and you really pushed it legally and were able to show monetary damages, you might win a judgement in the tens of dollars. In reality, NeoGAF is unlikely to re-use your work in a way that damages you monetarily, and you're unlikely to find a lawyer that will take your case without you ponying up his fees.

Even on deviantart they do not allow this or use the works created there unless they ask the creator.

This is not deviantart. Different forums have different terms. You accepted NeoGAF's when you joined, including the part that says, "Also be aware that these terms are subject to change at any time without notification."

 

[besada]

Does this give Evilore the rights to publish "NeoGAF: The Best Of", a hardback collection of excerpts from the site sold for only $30?

Yes, although it would also open him and his publisher to multiple lawsuits, which might or might not fall his way, but which would certainly eat up any profit he'd likely make from the book. People could assert that the late introduction of the clause into the TOS was unconscionable, which is how one goes about breaking adhesion contracts.

Personally, though, I'd love to see such a book. A wiser way to do it would be to compile the book and ask for explicit permission from all contributors.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

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?

Even on deviantart they do not allow this or use the works created there unless they ask the creator.

It doesn't, it's been said a million times in this thread by the mods. Images you are not hosting on Neogaf's website except for your avatar, you are just providing a link, nothing else.

"Also be aware that these terms are subject to change at any time without notification."

More seriously, I would imagine that if NeoGAF really did re-use your work (in a way that wasn't allowed under the old TOS) and you really pushed it legally and were able to show monetary damages, you might win a judgement in the tens of dollars. In reality, NeoGAF is unlikely to re-use your work in a way that damages you monetarily, and you're unlikely to find a lawyer that will take your case without you ponying up his fees.


This is not deviantart. Different forums have different terms. You accepted NeoGAF's when you joined, including the part that says, "Also be aware that these terms are subject to change at any time without notification."

Mods have already said you're not hosting the image you're just providing the link so the art wouldn't actually fall under this.

 

[butter_stick]

We'd need to get the rights for floating Sam Jackson Bishop head for the cover first.

I would almost certainly put money down for that.

 

[Londa]

It doesn't, it's been said a million times in this thread by the mods. Images you are not hosting on Neogaf's website except for your avatar, you are just providing a link, nothing else.

Thanks, but yeah I would suggest sharing art through pm just to be sure. I've seen articles on popular websites that showcased fanart of games without permission of the artist. So if anyone doesn't want that to happen, they should remove those images just incase.

 

[kehs]

I'd venture to guess that "all encompassing" license wouldn't stand a chance in an actual courtroom if it ever came to that btw.

 

[samus i am]

Its not about the logo.

I'm talking about actual artwork, like in the arts and farts thread. I posted actual art here before. Now I have to find it and delete it if I haven't already done so.

Too late. I already took your art and have been selling it for some time now.

 

[Alucrid]

Thanks, but yeah I would suggest sharing art through pm just to be sure. I've seen articles on popular websites that showcased fanart of games without permission of the artist. So if anyone doesn't want that to happen, they should remove those images just incase.

This is assuming g that evilore will actually try and you know steal gag members Shit to sell which os stupid since he can probably sell this site itself for way more.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

Thanks, but yeah I would suggest sharing art through pm just to be sure. I've seen articles on popular websites that showcased fanart of games without permission of the artist. So if anyone doesn't want that to happen, they should remove those images just incase.

I'm assuming that still wouldn't make it legal if you Evilore decides to do that. And if you mean a website other than GAF, that pretty much applies to any website ever. People steal shit, not post on Neogaf won't change that.

 

[rainking187]

Thanks, but yeah I would suggest sharing art through pm just to be sure. I've seen articles on popular websites that showcased fanart of games without permission of the artist. So if anyone doesn't want that to happen, they should remove those images just incase.

PMs are included in this.

 

[renitou]

Luckily I contribute nothing of worth to begin with. And that is borne out well for me.

 

[Londa]

PMs are included in this.

Lol

 

[The Albatross]

Not worried about it.

Watch this hold up in court if it came to it, lulul

 

[Barrett2]

I'd venture to guess that "all encompassing" license wouldn't stand a chance in an actual courtroom if it ever came to that btw.

"What if the venue was Somalia? Shit be crazy over there."

©  ® ™ Lawblob Amalgamated Industries LLC, All Rights Reserved (╯°□°)╯​

 

[Shiggy]

WWSHS? (What would Scott Henson say?)

OR

OR

Image copyright by NeoGAF LLC



(Scottyboy, sue those not me )

 

[Hitokage]

"What if the venue was Somalia? Shit be crazy over there."

They have courts?

 

[entremet]

Meh. This isn't my site, I'm just a guest here anyway. Same for all other forums and Internet services I use, so I don't get the sense of entitlement. GAF's TOS is very similar to those.

 

[Corto]

I'm talking about art.

Londa I completely understand why you are upset by this. But it's all content. When you post it in a public forum like this it's now impossible for you to control or exercise your ownership/copyright. You and the other gaffers that produce work that enriches this forum are assets of this site, Evilore more than anybody feels the tension of it as if these assets stop participating and contributing to the community the site/community is poorer for it.

If you create something original that you feel that may have future value for your career don't post it here. Post here only stuff that you are ready to forfeit completely of your ownership of it.

Sorry the mangled language I'm trying to direct translate my thoughts about this matter that is a rather complicated one.

 

[Dennis]

They have courts?

Sharia courts.

Don't know how they stand on copyright law.

 

[demosthenes]

Has Evil Lore made any official statements regarding this yet? Curious to what his reasoning is to do this now.

Was hardly past post 100 and you couldn't CTRL+F 'Evil' on a couple pages?

edit: So the thread in the OT the other week got 57 banned, what's the over/under for more people over reacting to this and leaving/getting banned in the process?

 

[Windu]

When you modify the tos you need to inform the users, very unprofessional having to find out like this.

 

[phisheep]

Well, and some of us are really big fans of Creative-GAF and slightly panicked.

But I think things will all work out ok.

I am too (and I do kick myself for not contributing more often - too much real life and too damn much Tim Langdell). There really is not anything special to worry about here.

Any rights/opportunities you lose through republication in accordance with the revised TOS aren't any different to what you already lost by publishing on GAF anyway (exclusivity mainly). And remember that copyright subists in the text rather than the idea, and I guess you'll be reworking that story/adjusting that image for publication anyway, which might well be enough.

The three things that you might potentially lose are (a) attribution and (b) the ability to modify and (c) the ability to take the thing down altogether.

To be quite honest, now the Wayback engine is around, the second two are lost anyway. You'll never be able to modify or take down all copies, not reliably.

So it's attribution. And really that is a practical thing. And actually the new TOS helps here. It gives GAF the power to licence publication - and by implication the ability to go after people who republish without a licence - and also the ability to set the terms of any such licence. Now, in practice, the absolute minimum condition to such a licence is going to be a link back to GAF, and if you have the link back you also get the attribution, because it is right there on GAF.

I suppose there's a secondary side though. And that is the inability to respond to criticism. If you post on GAF, you'll get your critics on GAF and you can respond to them. I can imagine though that if something gets reposted somewhere else that has some sort of comment/forum facility it could be a bit of a bummer to find a thread of critique developing that you can't respond to because you are not a member of that particular forum/site/whatever. Don't know what can sensibly be done about that.

 

[Ashes]

I think we all love you really. It's probably just aftermath of destructoid making people hypersensitive.

I still have my pitch forks up. My arms are hurting; can I put them down now?

I think EviLaw would probably exercise common sense regarding poetry and writing threads. In the poetry threads, we pretty much display all our poems in the op for gaffer's enjoyment.

 

[Speevy]

So I have this idea for a game.


You're a pizza, and you must eat all the cats to survive.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

My wife was at some market research conference the other day, and she said that they constantly referred to NeoGAF for quotes and feelings during the London Riots.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

Yep, sounds like a plan, regardless of what the ToS says, considering what people are describing about publishing requirements and the internet.

I work in the trademark and patent industry, and as far as I can tell, neogaf does not have the rights to anybody's work of art. No matter what TOS they may have agreed to. A copyright goes into effect as soon as it's published, and it does not mean transference of ownership (which I saw you already address). If a user posts personal artwork or something that could fall within that realm here and a partner, for whatever reason, decides to take it and sell it (photos, stories, etc) your TOS are not going to save you should a user get pissed, find out, and sue.

I don't mean for this to sound threatening because I think users are blowing things out of proportion anyways, but should the above ever happen, I'd strongly urge you to get legal advice or definitely prevent outright sale of any personal products.

Now, that being said, I do NOT believe posts fall under copyright, so I hope users keep this in mind. There is a gray area there where one could argue it was a story in a post...

Bah, my point is, users shouldn't worry regardless, I don't think anything will change, though I hope, morally, at least the OP for the weather thread was at least asked.

 

[ErasureAcer]

So if I post my picture/significant other in one of those threads....I no longer own that picture, NeoGAF does? Didn't FACEBOOK try to pull this same scheme? Weren't they beaten back?

 

[Londa]

Londa I completely understand why you are upset by this. But it's all content. When you post it in a public forum like this it's now impossible for you to control or exercise your ownership/copyright. You and the other gaffers that produce work that enriches this forum are assets of this site, Evilore more than anybody feels the tension of it as if these assets stop participating and contributing to the community the site/community is poorer for it.

If you create something original that you feel that may have future value for your career don't post it here. Post here only stuff that you are ready to forfeit completely of your ownership of it.

Sorry the mangled language I'm trying to direct translate my thoughts about this matter that is a rather complicated one.

Thanks for the reply. I totally get what your saying and for the most part I follow those rules. However sometimes I've been asked what kind of art I do and have posted examples I feel proud of. So its a tough road.

 

[Barrett2]

They have courts?

For five minutes i've seriously been trying to come up with a good Somalia-related pun zinger based on: "Jury of your peers..." but i've got nothing. Evilore won't be able to license my witty Somalia joke to the New Yorker.

 

[Kuro Madoushi]

I'll also add it's extremely easy to get something copyrighted (trademarks are a different matter and for god's sake don't post a potential invention idea in a public forum), so if you're THAT concerned, you can get your stuff copyrighted relatively cheaply and easily, and no, I'm not advertising my firm, in fact I want LESS work.

 

[blame space]

My wife was at some market research conference the other day, and she said that they constantly referred to NeoGAF for quotes and feelings during the London Riots.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

I do not understand the reference

 

[phisheep]

I'll also add it's extremely easy to get something copyrighted (trademarks are a different matter and for god's sake don't post a potential invention idea in a public forum), so if you're THAT concerned, you can get your stuff copyrighted relatively cheaply and easily, and no, I'm not advertising my firm, in fact I want LESS work.

Where are you Kuro? Over here (UK) copyright is automatic, you don't have to 'get' copyright it just happens when you write/make/paint etc something.

It's always bemused me a bit what else it could be like. I guess that's my parochial upbringing speaking.

 

[Brobzoid]

Thanks for the reply. I totally get what your saying and for the most part I follow those rules. However sometimes I've been asked what kind of art I do and have posted examples I feel proud of. So its a tough road.

In the case of things other than text or avatars the changes to the TOS doesn't matter. those (text and avatars) are the only things hosted on neogaf, when you post an image it's an embedded link to another site (like flickr, tumblr, etc) and that content is subject to the TOS of that host site.

 

[Barrett2]

I'll also add it's extremely easy to get something copyrighted (trademarks are a different matter and for god's sake don't post a potential invention idea in a public forum), so if you're THAT concerned, you can get your stuff copyrighted relatively cheaply and easily, and no, I'm not advertising my firm, in fact I want LESS work.

Sidenote, for my work i've had to file a few original trademarks for my employer, really basic logos and slogans. Honestly, the hardest part about filing a trademark is navigating the HORRIFIC Gov trademark website. It's like a master troll Kafka tribute or some shit.

 

[blame space]

I do not understand the reference

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxVofft54D8

 

[Londa]

I'll also add it's extremely easy to get something copyrighted (trademarks are a different matter and for god's sake don't post a potential invention idea in a public forum), so if you're THAT concerned, you can get your stuff copyrighted relatively cheaply and easily, and no, I'm not advertising my firm, in fact I want LESS work.

For art its even easier. As soon as the artwork is created it is copyrighted for up to a certain amount of years and if you want your art to be free to use you must indicated that some how before giving away your artwork.

 

[Mr. Luchador]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxVofft54D8

... well, ok.

 

[commish]

Sidenote, for my work i've had to file a few original trademarks for my employer, really basic logos and slogans. Honestly, the hardest part about filing a trademark is navigating the HORRIFIC Gov trademark website. It's like a master troll Kafka tribute or some shit.

Most of the time, it's pretty simple and straightforward, unless the examiner finds issues. But the goal is to get a registration that is as broad as possible, which can be tricky.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

I work in the trademark and patent industry, and as far as I can tell, neogaf does not have the rights to anybody's work of art. No matter what TOS they may have agreed to.

They don't have the rights to anybody's work of art, but they do have "a perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable, fully-paid, royalty-free, sub-licensable and transferable (in whole or part) worldwide license" to those works? How does that work, is that a difference without distinction?

If a user posts personal artwork or something that could fall within that realm here and a partner, for whatever reason, decides to take it and sell it (photos, stories, etc) your TOS are not going to save you should a user get pissed, find out, and sue.

Why wouldn't it save them if they have "a perpetual, non-exclusive, irrevocable, fully-paid, royalty-free, sub-licensable and transferable (in whole or part) worldwide license under all copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secrets, privacy and publicity rights and other intellectual property rights you own or control to use, reproduce, transmit, display, exhibit, distribute, index, comment on, modify, create derivative works based upon, perform and otherwise exploit the messages posted or private messages sent on NeoGAF.com, in whole or in part, in all media formats and channels now known or hereafter devised, for any and all purposes including entertainment, news, advertising, promotional, marketing, publicity, trade or commercial purposes, all without further notice to you, with or without attribution, and without the requirement of any permission from or payment to you or to any other person or entity."? (my emp.)

Given such a license, on what grounds would the original creator have to sue?

Now, that being said, I do NOT believe posts fall under copyright, so I hope users keep this in mind. There is a gray area there where one could argue it was a story in a post...

Why would you believe that? A work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

I'll also add it's extremely easy to get something copyrighted...

So easy in fact, that your posts that I'm replying to are already copyrighted.

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

For such a large thread I expected some genuine controversy. This was so boring.

Change the TOS to something actually fucked up, EviLore, so we can at least get this thread to go somewhere good!

 

[JonathanEx]

I think what's important is just that things are made clear. Like the change here, it looks bad, but explains it make sense - we just need plain english and things to be open. If threads are made specifically for NeoGAF asks type articles, which is obviously fine, it'd just be nice to know - and if there are other similar licenses given, just be up-front about it.

If things are clear and openly communicated then I'm sure most people will trust things to be done well.

//

And to clarify - would only images uploaded to the server (eg avatars) would be affected? As images in posts are embedded on other servers, they'd be under whatever license they were uploaded to that with/had anyway? Me am not great legal.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

I still really don't understand what this means in terms of art. I'm hearing speculation from all sides. So just to be safe, I'm going to remove most of my stuff from the Arts & Farts thread. I'll just post links from now on.

 

[AstroLad]

Anybody else getting the sense that maybe NeoGAF is getting into the "Apple business" of suing posters for their patents if they violate these new terms? Maybe the mods got some ideas after reading some of the "how much do you make?" threads in the OT?

I have to say I'm surprised that top-level "premier" posters like me weren't outreached to in advance, or at least given the ability to sign an agreement with more flexibility. But then again that is the direction NeoGAF has been moving in for years now, so I can't say I'm all that surprised....

 

[Barrett2]

Most of the time, it's pretty simple and straightforward, unless the examiner finds issues. But the goal is to get a registration that is as broad as possible, which can be tricky.

The last time I filed one, the system kept crashing right before I paid. It sucked.