Terms corrections needed

jamesd

The following appear to be errors in the terms and conditions or related items.

1. All avatars are prohibited.

"Please ensure that your avatar (the small picture under your username) and posts do not contain flashing images. Nor should these images be in any way copyrighted, rude or likely to offend. Such images will be removed."

This prohibits all avatars, since the creator of an avatar is automatically the copyright holder of the avatar. Even the site-provided avatars and Martin's own breach this condition, because their copyright is held by someone. Only an avatar dedicated to the public domain or ineligible for copyright is actually permitted on the site according to this.

"copyrighted" should probably be changed to "copyright infringing", at which point the problem vanishes and only what should be blocked is blocked.

Source: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=1009313&postcount=4

2. MSE simultaneously asserts no copyright and the whole copyright on board posts.

""MoneySavingExpert.com asserts copyright on all comments posted on the boards."

Source: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=1009323&postcount=9

Conflicts with:

6.1 All of the content on our site is owned by us or our licensors and is protected by UK and international copyright laws.
7.1 Just so that you know, you own any copyright in the text that you post to our chat forums. However, when you post text, you expressly grant us a perpetual, unlimited free license to republish that text on our site and to redistribute/make available and/or sell that text in print or electronic form any where in the world as part of an edited compilation or otherwise.

Source, the proposed new Terms and Conditions at http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/cgi-bin/viewnews.cgi?newsid1090617135,48120,

As the proposed T&C say, the posters are actually the copyright holders and licensors of the content to MSE and MSE isn't the copyright holder.

The forum post should probably be changed to say "compilation copyright" or perhaps "database copyright", which would be what can be asserted in this situation.

3. The "proposed" new Terms and Conditions?

Yes, proposed. See the bottom of each page on the site:

"See Full Terms & CondItions and Privacy Policy (last updated 23.11.04)."

Given such a notice of last update effective date on every page, it'll be really interesting to see whether a court would accept the later revisions. I haven't seen a case ruling on this. MSE probably doesn't want to be a test case though.

Should change the notice at the bottom of every page to the correct last update date, at which point most of the problem goes away. Still up in the air will be anything done between 23.11.04 and the time of that change, since it's unclear which T&C had effect during that period.

divadee

When the terms and conditions were updated last year, they were all looked over by martins lawyers so i assume they would stand up in a court of law as martin wouldnt pay hefty fees to lawyers who didnt do there job properly would he????

Gareth1_2

Hell no, martin miss something like that, surely not:rolleyes: but im sure had he missed it he would thanks jamesd for taking the time to post

wobbley

divadee wrote:

When the terms and conditions were updated last year, they were all looked over by martins lawyers so i assume they would stand up in a court of law as martin wouldnt pay hefty fees to lawyers who didnt do there job properly would he????

I doubt Martin would have paid 'hefty' fees anyway He would have probably asked for a discount or gone through Quidco.

jamesd

The problem isn't the T&C but the cases where it disagrees with what is said elsewhere on the site. Easy enough to correct and no modification to the T&C itself needed.

There are other issues with the T&C but those are harder to deal with. For example, they assert a license to use the board content in print, apparently envisioning doing so without discussing it with the poster first. It'll be interesting when a poster asserts their "moral right" to be associated with their work or their publicity right to their name if they weren't consulted in advance. The best solution is just not to put someone in a book or ad or whatever without discussing it with them first. That's both sensible and ethically right anyway. More hassle upfront but less long-term and also a more satisfying feeling to know everyone really wants to be there, IMO.

trafalgar_2

Does that mean I should of been asked permission before I appearred in the books:eek: ...........................where's that number for my lawyer:rotfl:

jamesd

trafalgar,

Do let the publisher know that you are asserting your moral right to be associated your words and seek compensation or removal of the books from the shelves until they comply with your request.

Unless, that is, you have a problem associating your professional reputation, if any, with the words and Martin and wish to have your name disassociated from his work. In which case contact the publisher and demand that they remove your name from the work or remove the work from the shelves so it doesn't besmirch your reputation, demanding compensation until they have done so.

Realistically, none of this is likely but much legal work is about avoiding problems by arranging things in advance. Martin also has the dubious joy of being prominent enough that some tabloid or other would probably publish the complaints of anyone unhappy with being included, regardless of the legal situation. Unlikely to be a big deal but asking permission in advance is also not a big deal and avoids the potential for subsequent pain.

Of course, the tabloids are probably eagerly collecting his rubbish and office waste looking for privacy and identity theft compromises... the joy of being well known.

trafalgar_2

very interesting thank you