planar1280
Banned
EviLore said:
is it possible to make a change for qouting someone with multiple images where the images are hidden unless you click on unhiding it. This way bandwidth is saved.
New NeoGaf TOS
- Thread starter jax (old)
- Start date
- Status
is it possible to make a change for qouting someone with multiple images where the images are hidden unless you click on unhiding it. This way bandwidth is saved.
Remember, before it was implied that you gave NeoGAF the license to do the following:
1. Accept the text and unparsed BB code you type in the post submission box.
2. Store a copy of this content in a database located in server storage and/or backup storage
3. Transfer the database and database information from server to server
4. Parse the content into HTML
5. Distribute this HTML to you, the forum reader
6. Distribute this HTML to anyone else in the entire world, because even North Korea can read NeoGAF (Rights to distribute throughout the universe may or may not be necessary.)
7. Allow the web browsers of anyone receiving this HTML to render it in an arbitrary fashion, including following URLs given in post content
8. Modify or remove your content without notice before or after
9. Retain, modify, or remove content even if we deny you further access to the website
10. Continue to distribute content even if we deny you further access to the website
11. Use your content as the main attraction of the website
12. Receive revenue from the act of people viewing your content
13. Possibly some other things I'm forgetting that are inherent to the act of owning and operating an internet forum.
Now, I personally hate dealing with IP law because I think it's broken beyond simple repair, but it's the legal environment we have to operate under. Of course, there are definitely unclear meanings and unintended consequences depending on the specific language employed, so I'm sure that improvements can be made so NeoGAF can continue to run as it has without us being sued or without us being assholes.
Again, outside of avatars you don't submit picture data to us, only the URL pointing to your picture data.
1. Accept the text and unparsed BB code you type in the post submission box.
2. Store a copy of this content in a database located in server storage and/or backup storage
3. Transfer the database and database information from server to server
4. Parse the content into HTML
5. Distribute this HTML to you, the forum reader
6. Distribute this HTML to anyone else in the entire world, because even North Korea can read NeoGAF (Rights to distribute throughout the universe may or may not be necessary.)
7. Allow the web browsers of anyone receiving this HTML to render it in an arbitrary fashion, including following URLs given in post content
8. Modify or remove your content without notice before or after
9. Retain, modify, or remove content even if we deny you further access to the website
10. Continue to distribute content even if we deny you further access to the website
11. Use your content as the main attraction of the website
12. Receive revenue from the act of people viewing your content
13. Possibly some other things I'm forgetting that are inherent to the act of owning and operating an internet forum.
Now, I personally hate dealing with IP law because I think it's broken beyond simple repair, but it's the legal environment we have to operate under. Of course, there are definitely unclear meanings and unintended consequences depending on the specific language employed, so I'm sure that improvements can be made so NeoGAF can continue to run as it has without us being sued or without us being assholes.
Again, outside of avatars you don't submit picture data to us, only the URL pointing to your picture data.
Repost for new page:
You're the law dude, does this make sense in legalese?commish said:Right, but let's not ignore the fact that, effectively, NEOGAF also owns it, since it can exploit it pretty much every way imaginable without having to compensate the "real" owner. It's pretty powerful language, but very, very common language. 99.99999% of the time, there's not going to be an issue. If you want to go into worst case scenarios, then of course I can think of many potential issues. But then, I get paid to look for worst case scenarios
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
TAKE ALL MY POSTS AND SELL THEM ON INTERNETS EVILORE
POST HISTORY IS BACK BITCHES!!!
Biggest news out of all this. Thank God!
I appreciate all the other additions too. Make my life easier will ya!
POST HISTORY IS BACK BITCHES!!!
Biggest news out of all this. Thank God!
I appreciate all the other additions too. Make my life easier will ya!
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
Skimming through the thread, I'm assuming this isn't that big of a deal?
I wonder what the GAF-man thread thinks about this
© MrFoxdie
I wonder what the GAF-man thread thinks about this
© MrFoxdie
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Gotta say that TOS change is a bit over the top. Disappointing, considering how highly I thought of GAF's bosses before this. Hopefully it will be edited a bit to make it less inclusive. People are going to be much less creative here if this stays as is.
Chet Rippo
Member
Good because quite frankly, I'm lazy.EviLore said:
Zombie James
Banned
A public forum is a public forum, anyone can "site:neogaf.com <term>" in Google and get whatever they want. But private messages? That's where I feel really shitty about this. I've sent people my home address and alternate email addresses though private messages. I do not want that information (or anything else I've said in a PM) freely given out to whoever asks for it. I'd suggest either changing that clause or renaming "private messages" to something that more accurately reflects what it actually is now.
echoshifting
Banned
Zombie James said:
"Private" messages have never been private, because you do not have the authority to forbid the recipient from distributing it.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
ScOULaris said:
-Full search functionality (w/ post history etc.) back
-Multi-quote button for easily quoting multiple posts.
-Automatic link back to original post when quoting someone
-Automatic resizing of quoted images for when nubs don't remove the img tags
UI-wise, all looks identical except for removing the redundant "reply" link on the left of each post and replacing it with a multiquote button. And I'll probably remove the google custom search thing since it's awful.
LIVE IT
Copernicus said:
I would say that the difference between what is required to run the site and what is present in the language of the ToS is the ability of NeoGAF to sublicense and transfer their license to others. I am able to fairly anticipate the way material I post will be used and displayed on this site, but cannot anticipate how it would be used on any other site.
I already include a Creative Commons Attribution license embedded in the photographs I post on GAF. NeoGAF publishing or resizing the image within my post is in compliance with this license. If Kotaku comes along and wants to republish the image/photoshop it/whatever, they are allowed to do so as long as I get credit for the original work. Under the new ToS they can transfer the license to publish to a different website without the attribution in place.
EviLore said:
It's one thing to say "trust me now", but this ToS grants rights to 'NeoGAF, LLC' in perpetuity. Who's to say the site won't be bought out in 10 years? I would prefer to have some sort of explicit language in the ToS like "we will not republish your work without attribution".
Vanillalite
Ask me about the GAF Notebook
charlequin said:
Umm if you can grant reposting rights that is effectively granting you co-ownership on said post. I'm actually cool with the new TOS especially considering how the internet already is these days, but I don't really understand this line of thinking that it doesn't grant NeoGAF ownership in any way shape or form.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
I guess I missed it but when is GAF update 3.0 coming?
Shanadeus said:
You could go even further with it, really, if you want to be REALLY alarmist. If you had a publishing deal, and the publisher said, "Okay, we love this short story, we want to publish it, but you have to grant us the exclusive rights to publish and exploit it." Technically, you can't give an exclusive license, because you've already given NEOGAF a license. I deal with a similar situation when it comes to bankruptcy and IP ALL THE TIME, and it drives everyone bonkers.
This scenario, much like what you described, are unlikely to happen in reality. Unlikely as in, you have a better chance of hitting the lottery 5 days in a row.
slidewinder
Banned
It's not even that. It was added in response to some concerns a couple people had about Kotaku's new "NeoGAF Asks" column.lawblob said:
Another way to address those concerns without trying to nail down the whole "who owns what here" (i.e., leaving things in the limbo they'd always been in) would've been for Evilore to tell the Kotaku guys "Yes, you have my permission, but send a PM to the topic creator asking for permission as well before you post." Maybe that'd be too cumbersome.
Barbacoatl
Banned
¡No more photoshops from me!
Wait, I barely do that anymore.
Wait, I barely do that anymore.
butter_stick
Banned
Evilore checks AdSense daily. And it's like winning the lottery for nearly 1000 days in a row.commish said:
Typographenia
Member
AkuMifune said:
Where do I sign up? I can have my airplane tickets ready in a few moments notice.
Zombie James
Banned
echoshifting said:
Obviously, just like email.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
They weren't worth spreading around anyways bub, so don't sweat itcommedieu said:
charlequin
Banned
Squirrel Killer said:
You're already going to fall afoul of that if you've posted your content publicly on the web, regardless of the specifics attached to its licensing. As an unpublished writer, even extremely minor public uses of a work are likely to disqualify it with many potential publishers.
As an (unfortunate) general rule, if you aspire to be traditionally published as a writer, you should never post or perform publicly any individual work you believe may be publishing-viable. If you intend to post stuff online, you need to be thinking upfront about alternate monetization strategies that are internet-friendly and which probably aren't going to involve the traditional publishing industry.
echoshifting
Banned
Plywood said:
Hell no, creative writers are fucking terrible at comprehending legalese, it runs counter to all of our best instincts
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Sounds like some here have big egos. Too important to post on GAF now.
Squirrel Killer said:
It's one of the reasons agents and publishers will tell you not to post your work online. It's also the reason I've rarely been willing to participate in the creative writing threads, because once you've published it online, you can't actually sell your first electronic rights without violating the terms of the contract. And since more and more we're seeing First Electronic rights bundled with FNASR, you may be excluding yourself from markets by putting your work online.
As the various short story markets have begun doing online versions, they've added FER to the standard FNASR contracts, so they can publish your short story in their magazine and online. Realistically, most publishers aren't going to make an issue of it so long as the story isn't sitting on a short story site or another magazine's website, but they certainly could.
Yes. Technically, Evilore could publish a "GAF Writes" book containing the short stories from the creative writing threads. I don't suspect he has any interest in doing so, nor do I think he would, but he could.lawblob said:
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Huh, so originally GAF was part of Kotaku?
butter_stick
Banned
Yes.Ookami-kun said:
Ninja Kn1ght
Member
Ookami-kun said:
Well, GAF was once hosted by IGN.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
I will slightly alter it and run with it. Don't worry BROTHER, I will continue tradition!Londa said:
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
butter_stick said:
So I guess that explains why, despite the many shit, Kotaku is still not banned from gaf.
EDIT
Ninja Kn1ght said:
Now I'm a bit conflicted.
But I guess it also explains why IGN isn't banned yet!
charlequin
Banned
Brettison said:
A co-owner would be able to restrict your ability to use or license the content without their consent, which NeoGAF will have no ability to do under these terms.
Londa said:
Here. I've just now quoted your entire post. What are you going to do?
I can even post it without its quote tags
I will be deleting any traces of my black gaf logo. Forget that. Just cause I'm on a forum and posting doesn't mean I agree with gaf using whatever I post. I never said ok to that when I signed up to this site.
It's mine now.
Cyan said:
It's always made me a little nervous, because I try to actively sell every piece I write. I see guys in there posting stuff they intend to sell and wonder if anyone runs up against the issue, but so far as I know, no one has. Probably overcautious on my part, but I grew up in a time when they considered any publication (electronic or otherwise) a barrier to selling FNASR. It took them a few years to get it sorted out and to separate electronic from print rights in editor's heads.
The one time I did participate, I sat down and wrote that story just for GAF, with no intention of selling it elsewhere. I suppose I could, if I could find a buying market that didn't want First Electronic Rights, but those are beginning to get scarce.
- Status