|
 |
| | | Author: | ToriHada  | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 11:23 | | Subject: | License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 181 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| To protect BrickLink and ensure that it has the right to allow certain others
to use images from the BrickLink catalog, I suggest that the following language
be added to this page:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogUpload.asp
"By uploading your image to BrickLink, you (a) represent that you own all copyrights
to such image, (b) agree to fully defend and indemnify BrickLink against the
claims of third parties regarding such image, and (c) grant to BrickLink an irrevocable
perpetual worldwide royalty-free license and right to use such image on BrickLink
and for BrickLink to sublicense the use of your image to others."
To reach back and cover all existing images (and other member contributions)
in the BL catalog, the ToS also needs to be revised to add similar language.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | drh | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To protect BrickLink and ensure that it has the right to allow certain others
to use images from the BrickLink catalog, I suggest that the following language
be added to this page:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogUpload.asp
"By uploading your image to BrickLink, you (a) represent that you own all copyrights
to such image, (b) agree to fully defend and indemnify BrickLink against the
claims of third parties regarding such image, and (c) grant to BrickLink an irrevocable
perpetual worldwide royalty-free license and right to use such image on BrickLink
and for BrickLink to sublicense the use of your image to others."
To reach back and cover all existing images (and other member contributions)
in the BL catalog, the ToS also needs to be revised to add similar language.
Thor
|
This is fine for all images uploaded AFTER this is added, but will in no way
alter the copyright holder's rights to any images already uploaded. To be completely
covered, Bricklink would have to contact the owner of every single catalog image
already uploaded and obtain their express permission to re-distribute these images.
The alternative would be to delete all existing images and ask contributors to
re-upload them with the new licensing terms in place. As I can't see Bricklink
doing either of these things, this fix is no fix at all.
Regards,
Deanna
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 11:42 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, drh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To protect BrickLink and ensure that it has the right to allow certain others
to use images from the BrickLink catalog, I suggest that the following language
be added to this page:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogUpload.asp
"By uploading your image to BrickLink, you (a) represent that you own all copyrights
to such image, (b) agree to fully defend and indemnify BrickLink against the
claims of third parties regarding such image, and (c) grant to BrickLink an irrevocable
perpetual worldwide royalty-free license and right to use such image on BrickLink
and for BrickLink to sublicense the use of your image to others."
To reach back and cover all existing images (and other member contributions)
in the BL catalog, the ToS also needs to be revised to add similar language.
Thor
|
This is fine for all images uploaded AFTER this is added, but will in no way
alter the copyright holder's rights to any images already uploaded. To be completely
covered, Bricklink would have to contact the owner of every single catalog image
already uploaded and obtain their express permission to re-distribute these images.
The alternative would be to delete all existing images and ask contributors to
re-upload them with the new licensing terms in place. As I can't see Bricklink
doing either of these things, this fix is no fix at all.
Regards,
Deanna
|
There is no need to complicate this. BrickLink can easily deal with past images
by adding similar language to the ToS as I suggested. Those changes will become
effective and binding on all members after 30 days. So there is no need to contact
every single member who donated an image to get their permission. The ToS is
all the permission that is needed.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | drh | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 11:55 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | There is no need to complicate this. BrickLink can easily deal with past images
by adding similar language to the ToS as I suggested. Those changes will become
effective and binding on all members after 30 days. So there is no need to contact
every single member who donated an image to get their permission. The ToS is
all the permission that is needed.
Thor
|
No, that will not be sufficient. If I uploaded an image 2 years ago, then AT
THAT TIME Bricklink's TOS specified that I retained all rights to that image.
Bricklink cannot revoke those rights simply by changing the TOS after the fact,
as I in no way surrender any rights to any intellectual property that I possess.
If I upload an image AFTER this change, then I would explicitly surrender my
rights to that image. Bricklink can only alter its TOS going FORWARD, not backward
in perpetuity.
Regards,
Deanna
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 12:03 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, drh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | There is no need to complicate this. BrickLink can easily deal with past images
by adding similar language to the ToS as I suggested. Those changes will become
effective and binding on all members after 30 days. So there is no need to contact
every single member who donated an image to get their permission. The ToS is
all the permission that is needed.
Thor
|
No, that will not be sufficient. If I uploaded an image 2 years ago, then AT
THAT TIME Bricklink's TOS specified that I retained all rights to that image.
Bricklink cannot revoke those rights simply by changing the TOS after the fact,
as I in no way surrender any rights to any intellectual property that I possess.
If I upload an image AFTER this change, then I would explicitly surrender my
rights to that image. Bricklink can only alter its TOS going FORWARD, not backward
in perpetuity.
|
Well, I disagree and you can certainly believe what you want. I learned my lesson
not to argue the law with laypeople. Contracts can certainly apply retroactively
if that is what the parties expressly agree to.
I have also learned to be realistic and practical. No one is going to sue BrickLink
over these images. If they wanted to sue BrickLink, they would have done so already.
Because as it currently stands, these images are already being used off-BrickLink
without their permission. So I fail to see the logic in prefering to let things
be because the proposed fix may not (in your opinion) completely fix everything.
Better to fix something than nothing. A partial fix is better than no fix. You
gotta learn to walk before you run. 
And if you have a better fix, please do suggest it. If it helps more than this
suggestion, I will delete this suggestion and vote for yours. We agree there
is a problem. If you think my proposed solution is not enough, then propose a
better one.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rikitikitaviguy | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 12:10 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, drh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | There is no need to complicate this. BrickLink can easily deal with past images
by adding similar language to the ToS as I suggested. Those changes will become
effective and binding on all members after 30 days. So there is no need to contact
every single member who donated an image to get their permission. The ToS is
all the permission that is needed.
Thor
|
No, that will not be sufficient. If I uploaded an image 2 years ago, then AT
THAT TIME Bricklink's TOS specified that I retained all rights to that image.
Bricklink cannot revoke those rights simply by changing the TOS after the fact,
as I in no way surrender any rights to any intellectual property that I possess.
If I upload an image AFTER this change, then I would explicitly surrender my
rights to that image. Bricklink can only alter its TOS going FORWARD, not backward
in perpetuity.
|
Well, I disagree and you can certainly believe what you want. I learned my lesson
not to argue the law with laypeople.
|
WHOA! That's a little harsh...and how do you know she is/was NOT legally trained
in some fashion?
I teach high school students 9-12 grade but was accepted to medical school....
Contracts can certainly apply retroactively
| | if that is what the parties expressly agree to.
|
Again, go back to what she said-all parties would have to be contacted and therefore,
as you say 'agree'...
| | I have also learned to be realistic and practical. No one is going to sue BrickLink
over these images. If they wanted to sue BrickLink, they would have done so already.
Because as it currently stands, these images are already being used off-BrickLink
without their permission. So I fail to see the logic in prefering to let things
be because the proposed fix may not (in your opinion) completely fix everything.
Better to fix something than nothing. A partial fix is better than no fix. You
gotta learn to walk before you run.
|
Yes, I agree.... but doubt my vote counts!
| | And if you have a better fix, please do suggest it. If it helps more than this
suggestion, I will delete this suggestion and vote for yours. We agree there
is a problem. If you think my proposed solution is not enough, then propose a
better one.
Thor
|
True dat! This will take a little bit of pondering tonight...with a few beers
(YES EVERYONE-beer NOT from the US!)....
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 12:38 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, rikitikitaviguy writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, drh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | There is no need to complicate this. BrickLink can easily deal with past images
by adding similar language to the ToS as I suggested. Those changes will become
effective and binding on all members after 30 days. So there is no need to contact
every single member who donated an image to get their permission. The ToS is
all the permission that is needed.
Thor
|
No, that will not be sufficient. If I uploaded an image 2 years ago, then AT
THAT TIME Bricklink's TOS specified that I retained all rights to that image.
Bricklink cannot revoke those rights simply by changing the TOS after the fact,
as I in no way surrender any rights to any intellectual property that I possess.
If I upload an image AFTER this change, then I would explicitly surrender my
rights to that image. Bricklink can only alter its TOS going FORWARD, not backward
in perpetuity.
|
Well, I disagree and you can certainly believe what you want. I learned my lesson
not to argue the law with laypeople.
|
WHOA! That's a little harsh...and how do you know she is/was NOT legally trained
in some fashion?
|
I don't just assume legal training. Those with legal training in this country
are still a very small percentage of the population. Those with legal training
regarding the retroactivity of contracts make up an even smaller percentage of
the population. I am not trying to sound superior. I am being practial and realistic.
I am just agreeing to disagree and saying I don't want to argue such things further
with someone who most likely has little education or experience in such matters.
If I am wrong and Deanna does have legal training and experience regarding this
issue, I will apologize and engage her further.
| |
I teach high school students 9-12 grade but was accepted to medical school....
|
Does that make you a doctor capable of giving medical advice and treatment to
others?
| | Contracts can certainly apply retroactively
| | if that is what the parties expressly agree to.
|
Again, go back to what she said-all parties would have to be contacted and therefore,
as you say 'agree'...
|
That is her opinion. I disagree with it. Legally, there is no requirement to
actually contact every single member and get their express agreement every time
the ToS is changed. Please read the first part of the ToS. And then let me know
if you find any laws in Hawaii (which is controlling as far as the ToS is concerned)
which require what Deanna or you claim.
| |
| | I have also learned to be realistic and practical. No one is going to sue BrickLink
over these images. If they wanted to sue BrickLink, they would have done so already.
Because as it currently stands, these images are already being used off-BrickLink
without their permission. So I fail to see the logic in prefering to let things
be because the proposed fix may not (in your opinion) completely fix everything.
Better to fix something than nothing. A partial fix is better than no fix. You
gotta learn to walk before you run.
|
Yes, I agree.... but doubt my vote counts!
|
It counts as much as mine. But then this is not really a suggestion where any
votes should count. You can't vote on legal matters. The legal requirement either
exists or it doesn't, and no amount of voting by you, me or anyone else is going
to change that.
| | | | And if you have a better fix, please do suggest it. If it helps more than this
suggestion, I will delete this suggestion and vote for yours. We agree there
is a problem. If you think my proposed solution is not enough, then propose a
better one.
Thor
|
True dat! This will take a little bit of pondering tonight...with a few beers
(YES EVERYONE-beer NOT from the US!)....
|
I welcome improvements. I welcome beer even more.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rikitikitaviguy | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 12:52 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, rikitikitaviguy writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, drh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | There is no need to complicate this. BrickLink can easily deal with past images
by adding similar language to the ToS as I suggested. Those changes will become
effective and binding on all members after 30 days. So there is no need to contact
every single member who donated an image to get their permission. The ToS is
all the permission that is needed.
Thor
|
No, that will not be sufficient. If I uploaded an image 2 years ago, then AT
THAT TIME Bricklink's TOS specified that I retained all rights to that image.
Bricklink cannot revoke those rights simply by changing the TOS after the fact,
as I in no way surrender any rights to any intellectual property that I possess.
If I upload an image AFTER this change, then I would explicitly surrender my
rights to that image. Bricklink can only alter its TOS going FORWARD, not backward
in perpetuity.
|
Well, I disagree and you can certainly believe what you want. I learned my lesson
not to argue the law with laypeople.
|
WHOA! That's a little harsh...and how do you know she is/was NOT legally trained
in some fashion?
|
I don't just assume legal training. Those with legal training in this country
are still a very small percentage of the population. Those with legal training
regarding the retroactivity of contracts make up an even smaller percentage of
the population. I am not trying to sound superior. I am being practial and realistic.
I am just agreeing to disagree and saying I don't want to argue such things further
with someone who most likely has little education or experience in such matters.
If I am wrong and Deanna does have legal training and experience regarding this
issue, I will apologize and engage her further.
|
Very well said as usual.
| | | |
I teach high school students 9-12 grade but was accepted to medical school....
|
Does that make you a doctor capable of giving medical advice and treatment to
others?
|
Maybe not only in THIS state but nationwide. The point is YOU don't know. MY
point was that we can't assume things like most others are "laypeople"...if you
want to use statistics to then post comments that sound like you are trying to
be superior then you take the risk of one of your statistics calling you on it
And to answer your question directly? That is too much information that I am
willing to post here. I may have just attended medical school and hated it and
left? I may have practiced for a few years and left or I may have RETIRED from
practice and now want to do what I want for my remaining years...
I never asked what EXACT legal specialty you possess nor do I care. I was just
a little taken aback with your response regarding 'laypeople'...
| |
| | Contracts can certainly apply retroactively
| | if that is what the parties expressly agree to.
|
Again, go back to what she said-all parties would have to be contacted and therefore,
as you say 'agree'...
|
That is her opinion. I disagree with it. Legally, there is no requirement to
actually contact every single member and get their express agreement every time
the ToS is changed. Please read the first part of the ToS. And then let me know
if you find any laws in Hawaii (which is controlling as far as the ToS is concerned)
which require what Deanna or you claim.
|
No CLAIM....just trying to find the best solution...easy does it...go have an
early beer mate!
| |
| |
| | I have also learned to be realistic and practical. No one is going to sue BrickLink
over these images. If they wanted to sue BrickLink, they would have done so already.
Because as it currently stands, these images are already being used off-BrickLink
without their permission. So I fail to see the logic in prefering to let things
be because the proposed fix may not (in your opinion) completely fix everything.
Better to fix something than nothing. A partial fix is better than no fix. You
gotta learn to walk before you run.
|
Yes, I agree.... but doubt my vote counts!
|
It counts as much as mine. But then this is not really a suggestion where any
votes should count. You can't vote on legal matters. The legal requirement either
exists or it doesn't, and no amount of voting by you, me or anyone else is going
to change that.
| | | | And if you have a better fix, please do suggest it. If it helps more than this
suggestion, I will delete this suggestion and vote for yours. We agree there
is a problem. If you think my proposed solution is not enough, then propose a
better one.
Thor
|
True dat! This will take a little bit of pondering tonight...with a few beers
(YES EVERYONE-beer NOT from the US!)....
|
I welcome improvements. I welcome beer even more.
Thor
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | drh | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | I don't just assume legal training. Those with legal training in this country
are still a very small percentage of the population. Those with legal training
regarding the retroactivity of contracts make up an even smaller percentage of
the population. I am not trying to sound superior. I am being practial and realistic.
I am just agreeing to disagree and saying I don't want to argue such things further
with someone who most likely has little education or experience in such matters.
If I am wrong and Deanna does have legal training and experience regarding this
issue, I will apologize and engage her further.
That is her opinion. I disagree with it. Legally, there is no requirement to
actually contact every single member and get their express agreement every time
the ToS is changed. Please read the first part of the ToS. And then let me know
if you find any laws in Hawaii (which is controlling as far as the ToS is concerned)
which require what Deanna or you claim.
|
There is no legal requirement to get the express consent of every member to change
the TOS. HOWEVER, there IS a legal requirement to contact the holder of a copyright
in order to get permission to use that copyrighted material, with exceptions
noted for fair use, etc. Bricklink cannot suddenly change course midstream and
require copyright holders to surrender their rights to copyrighted material without
their express PRIOR consent. Since any such change to the TOS would not have
the express prior consent of the copyright holder, it would not be enforceable
for images already in the catalog. Bricklink CAN change the TOS for images uploaded
subsequent to the change, because each copyright holder would then be expressly
waiving their rights with regard to each image uploaded after the change. But
Bricklink CANNOT arbitrarily seize images owned by others unless it obtains the
express consent of the image owner.
Again, obtaining rights to all the images past and future is not the solution.
In fact, by licensing third parties to use Bricklink's images, Bricklink has
already taken responsibility for these images. It only remains for Bricklink
to complete this task by going after those who steal Bricklink's images WITHOUT
permission.
Regards,
Deanna
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 14:03 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, drh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | I don't just assume legal training. Those with legal training in this country
are still a very small percentage of the population. Those with legal training
regarding the retroactivity of contracts make up an even smaller percentage of
the population. I am not trying to sound superior. I am being practial and realistic.
I am just agreeing to disagree and saying I don't want to argue such things further
with someone who most likely has little education or experience in such matters.
If I am wrong and Deanna does have legal training and experience regarding this
issue, I will apologize and engage her further.
That is her opinion. I disagree with it. Legally, there is no requirement to
actually contact every single member and get their express agreement every time
the ToS is changed. Please read the first part of the ToS. And then let me know
if you find any laws in Hawaii (which is controlling as far as the ToS is concerned)
which require what Deanna or you claim.
|
There is no legal requirement to get the express consent of every member to change
the TOS. HOWEVER, there IS a legal requirement to contact the holder of a copyright
in order to get permission to use that copyrighted material, with exceptions
noted for fair use, etc. Bricklink cannot suddenly change course midstream and
require copyright holders to surrender their rights to copyrighted material without
their express PRIOR consent. Since any such change to the TOS would not have
the express prior consent of the copyright holder, it would not be enforceable
for images already in the catalog. Bricklink CAN change the TOS for images uploaded
subsequent to the change, because each copyright holder would then be expressly
waiving their rights with regard to each image uploaded after the change. But
Bricklink CANNOT arbitrarily seize images owned by others unless it obtains the
express consent of the image owner.
Again, obtaining rights to all the images past and future is not the solution.
In fact, by licensing third parties to use Bricklink's images, Bricklink has
already taken responsibility for these images. It only remains for Bricklink
to complete this task by going after those who steal Bricklink's images WITHOUT
permission.
Regards,
Deanna
|
I am sorry Deanna, but your understanding of contract and copyright law is not
correct. Anyone can waive their copyrights and right to seek legal redress, both
prospectively AND retroactively. And anyone can agree to retroactive provisions
in a contract. Nor does the contract need to be signed. Acceptance can be shown
from actions. By remaining a member of BrickLink after the ToS changes, you accept
and agree to those changes. It is NOT necessary to email every member and get
their express consent to every change in the ToS.
Again, I ask that if you have a better solution please suggest it.
Thor
P.S. Your comment about stealing "BrickLink's amages" is also misplaced. The
catalog images are not BrickLink's, so they can't be stolen from BrickLink. I
know it SEEMS this way (and I have made similar comments in the past). But, legally,
these images belong to someone else, not BrickLink. BrickLink only has a right
to use them on BrickLink and nowhere else.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | drh | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 12:19 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | Well, I disagree and you can certainly believe what you want. I learned my lesson
not to argue the law with laypeople. Contracts can certainly apply retroactively
if that is what the parties expressly agree to.
|
The key phrase here is "expressly agree to". No one who has uploaded any images
to Bricklink up to this point has expressly agreed to surrender their rights
to those images, nor have they agreed to surrender their rights at some time
in the future should Bricklink decide to change its TOS. This is why I stated
that Bricklink would have to ask for and receive explicit permission for every
image already in the catalog.
| | I have also learned to be realistic and practical. No one is going to sue BrickLink
over these images. If they wanted to sue BrickLink, they would have done so already.
Because as it currently stands, these images are already being used off-BrickLink
without their permission. So I fail to see the logic in prefering to let things
be because the proposed fix may not (in your opinion) completely fix everything.
Better to fix something than nothing. A partial fix is better than no fix. You
gotta learn to walk before you run.
And if you have a better fix, please do suggest it. If it helps more than this
suggestion, I will delete this suggestion and vote for yours. We agree there
is a problem. If you think my proposed solution is not enough, then propose a
better one.
Thor
|
The solution has already been proposed, and requires no formal suggestion nor
any change to the TOS. Bricklink has already taken upon itself the right to re-distribute
the images stored on its server, regardless of who the actual copyright owner
of each image may be. Bricklink now needs to take on the RESPONSIBILITY that
accompanies that RIGHT to disallow unauthorized use of those same images.
Regards,
Deanna
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | rikitikitaviguy | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 12:06 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, drh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | There is no need to complicate this. BrickLink can easily deal with past images
by adding similar language to the ToS as I suggested. Those changes will become
effective and binding on all members after 30 days. So there is no need to contact
every single member who donated an image to get their permission. The ToS is
all the permission that is needed.
Thor
|
No, that will not be sufficient. If I uploaded an image 2 years ago, then AT
THAT TIME Bricklink's TOS specified that I retained all rights to that image.
Bricklink cannot revoke those rights simply by changing the TOS after the fact,
as I in no way surrender any rights to any intellectual property that I possess.
If I upload an image AFTER this change, then I would explicitly surrender my
rights to that image. Bricklink can only alter its TOS going FORWARD, not backward
in perpetuity.
Regards,
Deanna
|
Interesting....and compelling...but right now, then, the question is simple:
CAN an immediate addendum to the TOS become somehow retroactive? When the drinking
age in the US changed from 18 to 21 in one false swoop, those that were already
over 18 were ALLOWED to consume alcoholic beverages...those who were 17 years,
364 days on the day of the law being implemented would now have to wait until
they were 21...even though their 2 day older friend could purchase legally...this
is fascinating
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, rikitikitaviguy writes:
| | In Suggestions, drh writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | There is no need to complicate this. BrickLink can easily deal with past images
by adding similar language to the ToS as I suggested. Those changes will become
effective and binding on all members after 30 days. So there is no need to contact
every single member who donated an image to get their permission. The ToS is
all the permission that is needed.
Thor
|
No, that will not be sufficient. If I uploaded an image 2 years ago, then AT
THAT TIME Bricklink's TOS specified that I retained all rights to that image.
Bricklink cannot revoke those rights simply by changing the TOS after the fact,
as I in no way surrender any rights to any intellectual property that I possess.
If I upload an image AFTER this change, then I would explicitly surrender my
rights to that image. Bricklink can only alter its TOS going FORWARD, not backward
in perpetuity.
Regards,
Deanna
|
Interesting....and compelling...but right now, then, the question is simple:
CAN an immediate addendum to the TOS become somehow retroactive? When the drinking
age in the US changed from 18 to 21 in one false swoop, those that were already
over 18 were ALLOWED to consume alcoholic beverages...those who were 17 years,
364 days on the day of the law being implemented would now have to wait until
they were 21...even though their 2 day older friend could purchase legally...this
is fascinating
|
There is quite a lot of caselaw and legal opinion on this very issue. It makes
a big difference if you are talking about laws or contracts. Because of constitutional
and other issues, it is much more difficult to make laws apply retroactively.
For contracts, however, it is much easier. You can't pick and choose the laws
which apply to you. But you can pick and choose your contracts. For that reason,
contracts are much easier to apply retroactively. They basically acknowledge
a purely optional agreement you knowingly and voluntarily made with someone else.
No one forces you to make such an agreement. It is entirely your choice. So if
you choose to make an agreement with retroactive terms, you are bound by it.
The same goes for the ToS, which is just another contract. If you remain a member
and continue using BrickLink more than 30 days after any new changes are made,
you accept and are bound by those changes.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 15:38 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, rikitikitaviguy writes:
| | Interesting....and compelling...but right now, then, the question is simple:
CAN an immediate addendum to the TOS become somehow retroactive?
|
...
There is quite a lot of caselaw and legal opinion on this very issue. It makes
a big difference if you are talking about laws or contracts. Because of constitutional
and other issues, it is much more difficult to make laws apply retroactively.
For contracts, however, it is much easier. You can't pick and choose the laws
which apply to you. But you can pick and choose your contracts. For that reason,
contracts are much easier to apply retroactively. They basically acknowledge
a purely optional agreement you knowingly and voluntarily made with someone else.
No one forces you to make such an agreement. It is entirely your choice. So if
you choose to make an agreement with retroactive terms, you are bound by it.
The same goes for the ToS, which is just another contract. If you remain a member
and continue using BrickLink more than 30 days after any new changes are made,
you accept and are bound by those changes.
|
What about images contributed by individuals who are no longer active members
(and thus not explicitly agreeing to the TOS change?
(I'm not putting forward an argument. I'm just curious about how you think those
should be handled.)
--
Marc.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | ToriHada | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 15:47 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, FigBits writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | In Suggestions, rikitikitaviguy writes:
| | Interesting....and compelling...but right now, then, the question is simple:
CAN an immediate addendum to the TOS become somehow retroactive?
|
...
There is quite a lot of caselaw and legal opinion on this very issue. It makes
a big difference if you are talking about laws or contracts. Because of constitutional
and other issues, it is much more difficult to make laws apply retroactively.
For contracts, however, it is much easier. You can't pick and choose the laws
which apply to you. But you can pick and choose your contracts. For that reason,
contracts are much easier to apply retroactively. They basically acknowledge
a purely optional agreement you knowingly and voluntarily made with someone else.
No one forces you to make such an agreement. It is entirely your choice. So if
you choose to make an agreement with retroactive terms, you are bound by it.
The same goes for the ToS, which is just another contract. If you remain a member
and continue using BrickLink more than 30 days after any new changes are made,
you accept and are bound by those changes.
|
What about images contributed by individuals who are no longer active members
(and thus not explicitly agreeing to the TOS change?
(I'm not putting forward an argument. I'm just curious about how you think those
should be handled.)
--
Marc.
|
I would consider those waived or abandoned. The reality is that ex-members and
inactive members are highly unlikely to care about or even remember those images.
If you want to address every possible legal risk, the ToS will be 100 pages long.
Business and common sense need to be balanced against the legal risks.
Thor
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | viejos | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 12:13 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To protect BrickLink and ensure that it has the right to allow certain others
to use images from the BrickLink catalog, I suggest that the following language
be added to this page:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogUpload.asp
"By uploading your image to BrickLink, you (a) represent that you own all copyrights
to such image,
|
Generally speaking, I think this suggestion is a good idea. But members are allowed
to submit images that they do not hold rights to. For example, images from LEGO
S@H. Or images from another user that have been modified either to make the entry
more correct or for the sake of image uniformity.
Also, say I scan the cover of a LEGO catalog for submission. The material I have
scanned is copyrighted material, and I do not own that copyright. But, I do have
permission to scan and upload that material because of the Fair Play rules from
TLG and TLG's agreement with BrickLink.com.
I would word that first phrase (a) differently, i.e. that "[you] represent you
either own all copyrights to such image, or represent you have permission to
submit such image".
| | (b) agree to fully defend and indemnify BrickLink against the
claims of third parties regarding such image, and (c) grant to BrickLink an irrevocable
perpetual worldwide royalty-free license and right to use such image on BrickLink
and for BrickLink to sublicense the use of your image to others."
To reach back and cover all existing images (and other member contributions)
in the BL catalog, the ToS also needs to be revised to add similar language.
|
The "image quarantine" idea (proposed recently) I think is better, if not from
a legal standpoint, from a PR standpoint.
Russell
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | rikitikitaviguy | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 12:23 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, viejos writes:
| | In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To protect BrickLink and ensure that it has the right to allow certain others
to use images from the BrickLink catalog, I suggest that the following language
be added to this page:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogUpload.asp
"By uploading your image to BrickLink, you (a) represent that you own all copyrights
to such image,
|
Generally speaking, I think this suggestion is a good idea. But members are allowed
to submit images that they do not hold rights to. For example, images from LEGO
S@H. Or images from another user that have been modified either to make the entry
more correct or for the sake of image uniformity.
Also, say I scan the cover of a LEGO catalog for submission. The material I have
scanned is copyrighted material, and I do not own that copyright. But, I do have
permission to scan and upload that material because of the Fair Play rules from
TLG and TLG's agreement with BrickLink.com.
I would word that first phrase (a) differently, i.e. that "[you] represent you
either own all copyrights to such image, or represent you have permission to
submit such image".
| | (b) agree to fully defend and indemnify BrickLink against the
claims of third parties regarding such image, and (c) grant to BrickLink an irrevocable
perpetual worldwide royalty-free license and right to use such image on BrickLink
and for BrickLink to sublicense the use of your image to others."
To reach back and cover all existing images (and other member contributions)
in the BL catalog, the ToS also needs to be revised to add similar language.
|
The "image quarantine" idea (proposed recently) I think is better, if not from
a legal standpoint, from a PR standpoint.
Russell
|
Hi Russell...
That's why I brought up this link....about images submitted by people who take
them from other places
http://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=519699
LM
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | FigBits | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2011 20:06 | | Subject: | Re: License to Use Images Off BrickLink | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, fosterbengoshi writes:
| | To protect BrickLink and ensure that it has the right to allow certain others
to use images from the BrickLink catalog, I suggest that the following language
be added to this page:
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogUpload.asp
"By uploading your image to BrickLink, you (a) represent that you own all copyrights
to such image, (b) agree to fully defend and indemnify BrickLink against the
claims of third parties regarding such image, and (c) grant to BrickLink an irrevocable
perpetual worldwide royalty-free license and right to use such image on BrickLink
and for BrickLink to sublicense the use of your image to others."
To reach back and cover all existing images (and other member contributions)
in the BL catalog, the ToS also needs to be revised to add similar language.
|
I'm fine with having changes to the ToS allow for this clause to apply retroactively
(with the possible difficulty that I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, concerning
no-longer-active members). I wonder if drh's concern about this stems from a
potential misunderstanding of the difference between licensing the right to use
the image and work made-for-hire.
The License agreement that you describe would not change the actual copyright
ownership of the image, so there should not be any concern that it would violate
copyright law. On the other hand, if the intention was actually that the copyright
was being completely transfered to BrickLink, that might be a different thing.
Although copyrights can absolutely be sold or given away, having a clause which
retroactively applies to previous contributions and which transfers all rights
sounds an awful lot like work-made-for-hire, which cannot be applied retroactively
(and of course it implies a relationship between BrickLink and the image submitter
which doesn't actually exist). Luckily, the suggestion does no such thing, so
... yeah ... so why am I even talking about it? I dunno. Moving on...
The main issue that I have is that with the way that it is currently worded (assuming
that the ToS version is essentially the same), you would be getting users to
agree that they owned the copyright to images that they have submitted in the
past, when no such requirement existed then. I myself have submitted images for
items which I do not own the copyright for. The images are the covers of Bionicle
comic book collections. I don't own those copyrights, so I could not legally
agree to that clause in the ToS.
--
Marc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, North Carolina
Canada, Ontario