Support NeoGAF

[RJT]

Why in the world would I send a DMCA notice to Destructoid?

Exactly. People are overreacting as hell to this. It's a public forum, everything I do here can be re-posted anywhere by anyone without asking for permission. I'm cool with Evilore having the permission to do it for whatever reason.

PM's are different, so I won't use them for anything private (I never did anyway...)


People overreacting to changes. News at 11...

 

[Einbroch]

And by posting we agree that out text/art/stuff can be used by other sites for pay-per-click profit. It's not world ending, but it's a damn shame IMO. Copyright is retained.

Except...it's always been that way.

People could ALWAYS DO THIS guys. It's just now in writing. No rights are being transferred. Hence whenever there's a T-Shirt contest or whatever it's very clearly stated you're giving up your art. This case? No. It's like every other forum and DeviantArt and the like.

The. Exact. Same.

 

[Earthstrike]

^

It's a non-exclusive license. You still retain ownership/rights to your work. This is a "cover our asses" clause and a "when some site asks me politely if they can highlight some NeoGAF post they think is cool there isn't some huge controversy, even though they could just NOT ask me and republish anyway without anyone giving a damn, like Destructoid just did a few days ago and other sites have done hundreds of times."

Does the act of deleting old posts nullify the non-exclusive license with respect to the content of older posts?

 

[Bboy AJ]

As part of Law GAF, whichever lawyer drafted that provision needs to have his or her bar admission revoked.

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

So we're now basically a media machine, producing content for many of Gaf's affiliates and partners?
All those wonderful ideas and intelligent statements I've posted... world changing philosophies and concepts!

Oh, wait.

Don't worry, man, no one can own an idea.

 

[kehs]

Evilore, is there a list of who the license would be extended to, available?

 

[gdt]

You can't post pics of your setup anymore, Evilore will take it.

 

[wsippel]

^

It's a non-exclusive license. You still retain ownership/rights to your work. This is a "cover our asses" clause and a "when some site asks me politely if they can highlight some NeoGAF post they think is cool there isn't some huge controversy, even though they could just NOT ask me and republish anyway without anyone giving a damn, like Destructoid just did a few days ago and other sites have done hundreds of times."

Why not remove the whole thing and require everything posted on GAF to be CC BY-SA then? That would be more than enough to cover your asses, and nobody can sell anything posted on GAF, so nobody has to worry about that part.

 

[Keylime]

If I post a picture of my virginity, does that mean I'm no longer a virgin since GAF takes it?

 

[Chet Rippo]

As part of Law GAF, whichever lawyer drafted that provision needs to have his or her bar admission revoked.

blame space has been a bad influence on evilore.

 

[Ydahs]

Occupy NeoGAF.

This literally made me laugh out loud. Bravo.

 

[Songbird]

You as an individual can still do that.

There's really nothing to worry about in the new ToS (aside from us not having the ability to agree to the new terms.)

If he puts arbitration agreements in the new terms... then we should really start to worry.

This is how it's always been.

I'm understanding you guys, I think, but blog sites like Kotaku have a history of using assets like fan made artwork and blogging. Artwork hosted on art communities has been used without credit and privately hosted work has been used without permission. It's a fair addition to the TOS, but it makes me tetchy when I consider the websites we're dealing with.

 

[hteng]

As part of Law GAF, whichever lawyer drafted that provision needs to have his or her bar admission revoked.

explain

 

[Plywood]

If I post a picture of my virginity, does that mean I'm no longer a virgin since GAF takes it?

No, NeoGAF gets the right to distribute your virginity.

 

[braves01]

I just saw the thread over on Kotaku. They are using GAF threads as articles now to avoid doing work and/or paying freelance fees. If they quoted a portion of thread to introduce their own take on the question (essentially Kotaku's reply to the OP), it wouldn't be that big an issue. But, they copy-pasted the whole fucking OP and are now collecting ad dollars off it. If you're gonna copy the whole fucking thing, you really ought to pay the OP a freelance fee.

Edit: I can't wait for Kotaku to start using posting ot's members spend a bunch of time on whenever a game launches.

 

[gdt]

If I post a picture of my virginity, does that mean I'm no longer a virgin since GAF takes it?

Depends how big Evilore's penis is.

 

[dave is ok]

This literally made me laugh out loud. Bravo.

I made the same joke much before him. He used the new TOS against me

 

[blame space]

have you guys ever thought about how many people are mods vs how many posters there are??

we are the 99%. i am NeoGAF.

#occupyNeoGAF

 

[LiK]

You can't post pics of your setup anymore, Evilore will take it.

post a pic of your penis and the internet owns it.

 

[rakhir]

*What* are you talking about? Kotaku doesn't own anything on NeoGAF. Kotaku doesn't own anything of m0dus's. I don't own anything of m0dus's, except for the stuff he's explicitly transferred rights to me for, like the NeoGAF logo.

This is why you should just write a post explaining what exactly this change means, since some of guys here just don't read legal. This would probably stop this panic.

I don't care for this TOS change, but i'm a junior so whatever.

 

[Shanadeus]

Does the act of deleting old posts nullify the non-exclusive license with respect to the content of older posts?

I will fight for the right to keep my old posts/threads under the old TOS.

 

[Aquavelvaman]

I really hope that someday girl-age threads get licensed out to askmen.com

 

[Chesskid1]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=32218068&postcount=1341

future of neogaf!!

 

[Josh7289]

Why not remove the whole thing and require everything posted on GAF to be CC BY-SA then? That would be more than enough to cover your asses, and nobody can sell anything posted on GAF, so nobody has to worry about that part.

Because that's actually taking the right away from creators who post their stuff on NeoGAF to choose what kind of license they want for their work.

 

[Bboy AJ]

explain

It's impossibly difficult to decipher. It's not clear, it's needlessly verbose, and just an overall pain to read.

His or her legal writing professor should also be fired.

 

[Escape Goat]

I made the same joke much before him. He used the new TOS against me

and i made the joke before you. Looks like we both lose.

 

[Jocchan]

People overreacting to changes. News at 11...

I think people are mostly overreacting because of the wording of the new TOS: it's a long sentence with lots of elements, so it's very easy to misread and it's not completely clear about what exactly gets licensed to NeoGAF and what doesn't (ie. pictures or intellectual properties described in a post).

 

[Plywood]

I really hope that someday girl-age threads get licensed out to askmen.com

That would be brilliant actually.

 

[Hex]

At the risk of sounding a bit off...
How is this really any different than the countless threads stemmed from people finding stories on other sites and posting them here?

Kotaku links to the main post if I am not mistaken, as do posters here when posting about another story.
Is it that it is word for word, or what?
Would word for word not be better than paraphrased where it might be misinterpreted?

 

[butter_stick]

 

[Clydefrog]

take me, gaf

take all of me

 

[Übermatik]

I made the same joke much before him. He used the new TOS against me

and i made the joke before you. Looks like we both lose.

Should've watermarked it. From now on, all my posts will be text as an image, watermarked.

 

[EviLore]

For fuck's sake, I don't even like Kotaku. We haven't entered some sort of content-stealing partnership. We haven't entered a partnership at all. They asked permission for something they could have done regardless, because they were being polite. And because people don't like Kotaku they're now outraged that Kotaku asked me for permission instead of the original poster. Well that's fine; here we are to keep the next time around from becoming a stressful IP law debate. With my wonderful meaningless non-exclusive license I can now give my completely pointless yet also polite permission, since this is the internet and everyone reposts everything from everywhere else with attribution at best or nothing at worst.

 

[blame space]

and i made the joke before you. Looks like we both lose.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=31653888&postcount=3133

smd hamburglar

 

[teiresias]

Except...it's always been that way.

People could ALWAYS DO THIS guys. It's just now in writing. No rights are being transferred. Hence whenever there's a T-Shirt contest or whatever it's very clearly stated you're giving up your art. This case? No. It's like every other forum and DeviantArt and the like.

The. Exact. Same.

People were always capable of doing this, but without having been granted licenses through the TOS they were subject to appropriate civil and criminal penalties if the breached party wished to take the necessary action (the state of current law makes the outcome of such action questionable, obviously). Putting this in the TOS pretty much negates any such rights to pursuing such action if ANYONE ON THE FORUM tells someone "sure, go ahead and repost that", so I really don't see how it's "how it has always been" at all.

If my landlord added in a clause to my lease that said, "We reserve the right to begin to charge $10 to your account everytime you operate the entrance gate." and tried to say to me, "Oh, we could have always done that, now we're just making it official" you can be certain I'd argue that rationale.

 

[SouthernDragon]

Evilore did not have to announce this or consult with anyone... but it sure would have been nice if he did.

 

[Einbroch]

At the risk of sounding a bit off...
How is this really any different than the countless threads stemmed from people finding stories on other sites and posting them here?

Kotaku links to the main post if I am not mistaken, as do posters here when posting about another story.
Is it that it is word for word, or what?
Would word for word not be better than paraphrased where it might be misinterpreted?

It's not. That's the whole point. People are freaking out over nothing. People could always link back here or take a quote from a member. Now it's just in writing. Kotaku didn't even have to ask for their story today, but they did.

People were always capable of doing this, but without having been granted licenses through the TOS they were subject to appropriate civil and criminal penalties if the breached party wished to take the necessary action. Putting this in the TOS pretty much negates any such rights to pursuing such action if ANYONE ON THE FORUM tells someone "sure, go ahead and repost that", so I really don't see how it's "how it has always been" at all.

If my landlord added in a clause to my lease that said, "We reserve the right to begin to charge $10 to your account everytime you operate the entrance gate." and tried to say to me, "Oh, we could have always done that, now we're just making it official" you can be certain I'd argue that rationale.

You had an argument until you posted that example, which isn't a very good one. You can still pursue action if someone takes your photos/posts/stories and makes it their own. You just can't if someone links back to NeoGAF or gives you or the site credit. How it's always been. Yeah, it's in wording now, but isn't that better than ambiguity?

 

[kathode]

It's impossibly difficult to decipher. It's not clear, it's needlessly verbose, and just an overall pain to read.

His or her legal writing professor should also be fired.

Seems pretty standard. Someone posted the YouTube version on page 3 and it's close to identical. Fire everyone!!!

 

[LiK]

For fuck's sake, I don't even like Kotaku. We haven't entered some sort of content-stealing partnership. We haven't entered a partnership at all. They asked permission for something they could have done regardless, because they were being polite. And because people don't like Kotaku they're now outraged that Kotaku asked me for permission instead of the original poster. Well that's fine; here we are to keep the next time around from becoming a stressful IP law debate. With my wonderful meaningless non-exclusive license I can now give my completely pointless yet also polite permission, since this is the internet and everyone reposts everything from everywhere else with attribution at best or nothing at worst.

It sucks to be nice, right?

 

[syllogism]

It's impossibly difficult to decipher. It's not clear, it's needlessly verbose, and just an overall pain to read.

His or her legal writing professor should also be fired.

It's a really standard one; pretty much copy pasted. The issue is the first sentence making it unclear whether it applies to all accounts or only ones registered after the change. It should just talk about submitting content.

 

[PantherLotus]

I don't see a huge deal with this, as it just secures the right for EviLore to deal with sites that republish content without acknowledging the source. Forums and content that appears on forums have generally been thought of as public domain, this just helps to get links back to the OP. (I see he just said pretty much exactly that).

The bigger deal is the number of posters that think they've created something of real value (photoshops? artwork?) but then would have the lack of foresight to not post it in a publically viewable space.

I can imagine a conflict of interest sometime in the future if the community (singular or otherwise) were to create something ... like DudeBro ... and EviLore were to sell the rights to a movie studio or something. Another thing that pops in my mind is the recent reddit thing where a movie studio bought the rights to a story that some poster had started there. I imagine this provision would prevent that, which would be a shame for our many creative minds.

That said, you should post your creative stuff to your own blogs and protect it in the first place. You probably already know that.

 

[Awesome Animals]

My only question is shouldn't we be required to agree to the Revised Terms of Service before being allowed to continue to post on NeoGAF?

 

[iNvid02]

For fuck's sake, I don't even like Kotaku. We haven't entered some sort of content-stealing partnership. We haven't entered a partnership at all. They asked permission for something they could have done regardless, because they were being polite. And because people don't like Kotaku they're now outraged that Kotaku asked me for permission instead of the original poster. Well that's fine; here we are to keep the next time around from becoming a stressful IP law debate. With my wonderful meaningless non-exclusive license I can now give my completely pointless yet also polite permission, since this is the internet and everyone reposts everything from everywhere else with attribution at best or nothing at worst.

bringing back smiley's would have made everyone a lot calmer

My only question is shouldn't we be required to agree to the Revised Terms of Service before being allowed to continue to post on NeoGAF?

yeah technically we need a pop up box saying agree/dsiagreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

^ ha my "e" key went full retard

 

[Bboy AJ]

It's a really standard one; pretty much copy pasted. The issue is the first sentence making it unclear whether it applies to all accounts or only ones registered after the change. It should just talk about submitting content.

Just because it's ubiquitous doesn't mean it isn't poorly drafted.

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

Fire everyone!!!

This is the best idea.

 

[RJT]

That said, you should post your creative stuff to your own blogs and protect it in the first place. You probably already know that.

This.

 

[Übermatik]

OMG IT'S HAPPENING. #occupyneogaf Is up to two posts.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Except that now NeoGAF posts are being republished over Kotaku.

Are the creators of said threads being asked for permission?

No he was not asked. They asked Evilore, but not the one who made the thread. Kotaku did credit the poster.

 

[Wario64]

April Fools is in a couple months. Haha, I didn't fall for it.

 

[gdt]

I don't see a huge deal with this, as it just secures the right for EviLore to deal with sites that republish content without acknowledging the source. Forums and content that appears on forums have generally been thought of as public domain, this just helps to get links back to the OP. (I see he just said pretty much exactly that).

The bigger deal is the number of posters that think they've created something of real value (photoshops? artwork?) but then would have the lack of foresight to not post it in a publically viewable space.

I can imagine a conflict of interest sometime in the future if the community (singular or otherwise) were to create something ... like DudeBro ... and EviLore were to sell the rights to a movie studio or something. Another thing that pops in my mind is the recent reddit thing where a movie studio bought the rights to a story that some poster had started there. I imagine this provision would prevent that, which would be a shame for our many creative minds.

That said, you should post your creative stuff to your own blogs and protect it in the first place. You probably already know that.

All I got was: DudeBro movie CONFIRMED. Directed by Micheal Bay (produced by Evilore) 2013