Question Terms of Service Question

[Art Andrews]

The RPF ToS



Facebook



Yep not even close... :wacko

Exoray, all I can say is you are going to see demons where you want to see them. If you can't see the clear difference in both wording and intent between those two, then I guess we will never agree on that point and there is no point in me trying to explain it further.

It is unfortunate that you are trying to make this more than it is but we are going to move forward and if a member or two has trouble stomaching the same old content with minor tweaks (not even to the areas you are on a soap box about) then we have given them the option to opt out. Those are the choices and based on this thread which has degenerated from legitimate concern to primarily the same old crew who likes to question everything and the empty inbox of the opt out email addy, we see the choice that the bulk of the membership has chosen.

 

[Art Andrews]

I think the bugaboo comes in that this has never been done, Art. A lot of the members have been violating the TOS in some regards for nigh on a decade.

I think a good many members would much prefer you continue with the minimalist approach you have been following. The TOS that you have pointed to scares a few of the users who work for FX houses, or have licenses for this or that. Saying "Nothing more, nothing less" and having a TOS which is full of, what some would construe to be "shady language".

Sometimes, kicking up silt is bad.

Certainly understand where you are coming from and those, like Joe and Larry who have expressed legitimate concerns. We have no issue with that at all, and appreciate the feedback and concern.

We knew going into this that there would be those who would show concern (although we actually thought it would be for different reasons) but part of what we are striving to do is create more transparency. Could we have simply made the relatively minor changes without notifying the members? Sure... but that isn't how we want to operate. We think you should know when we change a policy or procedure because it means you know where we stand and we know where you stand.... not to mention, when we fail to mention a change and someone stumbles upon it, then it is twisted to seem that we did it all cloak and dagger!

What is frustrating here are the same old antagonists are coming in to stir the pot, trying to make an issue out of content that has been a part of the ToS for who knows how long. Like Treadwell... I don't know either, but I know it has been at least more than 9 months and suspect it has been years as I remember some of the wording from years ago.

And you are right... it is going to take time for the membership to get used to us telling them what we are doing because that hasn't always been done as well as we might have liked... but we are constantly working to improve and to forge a stronger bond between the staff and members so members do know what we are doing and what is going on.

In regard to "shady language" in the ToS, I truly can see nothing shady at all. It is very straight forward and to the point. Now, I will agree that some will take the opportunity to try to twist it into a "sky is falling" or "big brother" scenario... but that is a very small minority. We have reached out privately to the FX house type people and once we explained it to them... surprise, surprise.... none of them had an issue. Why? Because there is no issue here... only a few who are looking to manufacture paranoia.

 

[defstartrooper]

I got the PM but i have to say i had no clue what changes had been made it's not like i'm constantly reading the TOS, beyond reading it at sign up i don't see why anyone would and without the old to compare to new i could see no way to know what the changes were.

So can i make a suggestion that in future announcements that any changes be outlined rather than an ambiguous message saying that the TOS has been updated ?

unsure or :thumbsup ?

 

[Art Andrews]

So can i make a suggestion that in future announcements that any changes be outlined rather than an ambiguous message saying that the TOS has been updated ?

thumbsup:thumbsup

This is a good idea and in the future we will be more clear on this.

BTW, if anyone wants to see the old ToS to compare it for themselves, I will be glad to make it available, but I can tell you the primary "changes" were:

1) the addition of the information about the LLC and

2) summing up "posting, emailing, PMing, etc" into the word "Transmit"


There were a few other small wording changes but that was about it. However, as always, we have nothing to hide so if it would make you feel better to have the old ToS to do your own comparisons, I will be glad to post it up.

 

[micdavis]

Keep up the great work Art.

Don't let the "usual suspects" get to you.

 

[EvilRocketeer]

(3) violates or infringes in any way upon the proprietary rights of others, including, without limitation, copyrighted software, music, photographs, text, videos or artwork;
.[/I]

I kinda chuckle when I see this rule because my friend (more of an acquaintance now) who is a fellow member contacted the mods back in august/sept I think about his grandfather's artwork being posted on this site that infringe on the property rights of his grandfather's artwork/company. (he didnt post the artwork, but another member did for the purpose of making copies and making replicas out of them). When he asked for them to removed because they violated their property rights, the mods ignored his request..and went against their own rules that they made :confused


When I tried to explain the whole situation to the grandfather, he wasnt too happy at all and wanted legal action. Trying to talk an oldman out of it is very difficult (especially when you only talked to him like 2 or 3 times before that). It ruin the friendship I had with his nephew etc etc..

 

[exoray]

Don't let the "usual suspects" get to you.

The typical "usual suspect" comeback, shoot the messenger not the message...:lol

When he asked for them to removed because they violated their property rights, the mods ignored his request..and went against their own rules that they made :confused

Interesting...

 

[Howard]

Question regarding this:

(b) infringe the rights of any third party, including but not limited to intellectual property rights and privacy or publicity rights;

So if a member posts up a build thread (replica prop - say a saber, helmet / bucket / SS model, SS model kit) would such posts be seen as infringing on studios / toy companies that own rights to produce replicas / models of identical subject matter seen in the member's build thread?

 

[Art Andrews]

Question regarding this:

(b) infringe the rights of any third party, including but not limited to intellectual property rights and privacy or publicity rights;

So if a member posts up a build thread (replica prop - say a saber, helmet / bucket / SS model, SS model kit) would such posts be seen as infringing on studios / toy companies that own rights to produce replicas / models of identical subject matter seen in the member's build thread?

Howard, typically, we defer judgment to the IP right owner. If said studio/toy company/licensee came to us, proved they did own the IP rights, and voiced a concern about infringement, we would likely act on their behalf. However, historically, this has been incredibly rare and we expect that to continue to be the case.

Again, this is something that has been a part of the ToS for years and we have no plans of suddenly changing the way we have handled these rules and begin applying them differently.

 

[Howard]

Hi Art.

That's great - undersood. Many thanks for the reply.

 

[DrStranglove]

In regard to "shady language" in the ToS, I truly can see nothing shady at all. It is very straight forward and to the point. Now, I will agree that some will take the opportunity to try to twist it into a "sky is falling" or "big brother" scenario... but that is a very small minority. We have reached out privately to the FX house type people and once we explained it to them... surprise, surprise.... none of them had an issue. Why? Because there is no issue here... only a few who are looking to manufacture paranoia.

I have to agree on this. I bet all of you are members of more than one site that explicitly says "we own what you post" in one way or another. Even Apple.com go into trouble for it a while back but if you read closely, not much changed. This is a CYA move and has been part of the TOS of the various RPFs since at least '99 when I first showed up.


I actually recommended the LLC idea to Cliff and Nikki back when they started running the server as a liability shield. And interesting point though in that as it makes other questions that have been asked here easy to answer. One other point, as I remember the law, the site has to provide on the site a physical mailing address and registered agent should the RPF come under the umbrella of corporate ownership. I know that my company flat out has to do this. We put it on the "contact us" page.

 

[Art Andrews]

One other point, as I remember the law, the site has to provide on the site a physical mailing address and registered agent should the RPF come under the umbrella of corporate ownership. I know that my company flat out has to do this. We put it on the "contact us" page.

I am taking it you didn't actually read through the TOS, since this is in there... :lol

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Art, are you not yet convinced by now that NONE OF US HAVE? :lol

 

[Art Andrews]

I will be the first to admit... I never read the TOS for 99% of the sites I visit... but then again, I don't post about the TOS on 99% of the sites I visit either. I think it is terrible that we even need such things but in the litigious world in which we live, it is a necessary evil. I, for one, will be so glad when we are done with the infrastructure work and can get back to focusing on props and arguing about prop related topics instead of these things.

 

[DrStranglove]

I will be the first to admit... I never read the TOS for 99% of the sites I visit... but then again, I don't post about the TOS on 99% of the sites I visit either. I think it is terrible that we even need such things but in the litigious world in which we live, it is a necessary evil. I, for one, will be so glad when we are done with the infrastructure work and can get back to focusing on props and arguing about prop related topics instead of these things.

I highly doubt we will ever quit bitching back and forth about this stuff. Never seems to stop, and that is not just here but just about every forum I belong to.