New Boards.ie Terms of Use and Privacy Policy - your feedback welcome

AnimalRights

I've never read a sticky in me life let alone a charter or a Tof U

Tofu for Veggies I say.

johnnyskeleton

Darragh wrote: »

Ha, I wish it was a slow month! The point of this is just like every other site out there, to have Terms of use that protect users and clarify the rules and guidelines of this site.

And just like every other site, would it not be prudent to require users to agree to the new terms and conditions when they log in after the change, particularly since one of the changes relates to the ownership of intellectual property?

Also, is there any benefit to a cheat sheet of the major changes brought in by the T&Cs so that they are a bit more accessable?

TouchingVirus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And just like every other site, would it not be prudent to require users to agree to the new terms and conditions when they log in after the change, particularly since one of the changes relates to the ownership of intellectual property?

Use of the site post notification is deemed to be acceptance of the terms. When a massive site like Paypal changes it's terms, which it has done twice this year alone (possibly more), they inform you but do not request you agree with the new rules. It is stated that use of Paypal after the date of the change constitutes agreement.

The only thing they do differently is email every user to let them know policy changes have been implemented, whereas boards have this announcement box at the top of the forum.

10-10-20

By posting any Material on or through Boards.ie, you grant us a limited license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Materials in connection with Boards.ie or the promotion thereof.

Err... this part I have issue with.
If you want ownership of the bits & bytes which make up my postings, then get lawyers who aren't afraid of computers.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/23/cps_paper/

johnnyskeleton

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Use of the site post notification is deemed to be acceptance of the terms. When a massive site like Paypal changes it's terms, which it has done twice this year alone (possibly more), they inform you but do not request you agree with the new rules. It is stated that use of Paypal after the date of the change constitutes agreement.

The only thing they do differently is email every user to let them know policy changes have been implemented, whereas boards have this announcement box at the top of the forum.

But when another website changed its terms of use, in particular in relation to copyright and IP issues, they specifically required users to agree to the terms of use. Anyone who did not agree could have their account deleted.

I just stumbled upon this when I logged in. Supposing that I didn't use boards until after Christmas and the seven days of the notice had expired and I was not aware of the change in terms - what happens then?

Also by using the site to find out a bit more about the terms of use appears to make it binding.

Much better, I think, to ask the already registered users to agree, with perhaps access to certain fora to ask questions etc prior to agreeing to them.

By posting on the feedback forum, people are using the site and so agreeing to the new terms. So anyone with a genuine issue is required to agree to the terms and conditions in order to query them.

peasant

[you agree not to]

# post Material that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright, rights of privacy or publicity, or other proprietary right of any party

This is a minefield all of its own.

(It's probaly already part of the current T&C's, but it certainly was never enforced)

I'd be willing to bet that every second text or picture quoted on boards infringes on somebodies copyright somewhere ...see quoted newspaper articles in politics / AH or car pictures in motors ...half of them are "stolen" from other websites.

Are we to police these now, check where they came from and delete if necessary?
Are the posters to check the T&C's of the website they nicked the quote/pic from before posting?

In Germany it's a "sport" for a certain class of low-life lawyers to sue forums for damages on infringement of copyright ...often without the knowledge or expressed order of the aggrieved party, just for the fun and financial gain of it.

Some German forums allow no quotes whatsoever, only links and only pictures that you took yourself and uploded from your own computer.

Will we have to go that way as well?

TouchingVirus

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But when another website changed its terms of use, in particular in relation to copyright and IP issues, they specifically required users to agree to the terms of use. Anyone who did not agree could have their account deleted.

I just stumbled upon this when I logged in. Supposing that I didn't use boards until after Christmas and the seven days of the notice had expired and I was not aware of the change in terms - what happens then?

Also by using the site to find out a bit more about the terms of use appears to make it binding.

Much better, I think, to ask the already registered users to agree, with perhaps access to certain fora to ask questions etc prior to agreeing to them.

By posting on the feedback forum, people are using the site and so agreeing to the new terms. So anyone with a genuine issue is required to agree to the terms and conditions in order to query them.

If I no longer accessed my Paypal email account, and was offline for the week after they announced it then I wouldn't know about the changes but every time I used the site would have been deemed to accept those new T&C's

I disagree that users should be asked to explicitly accept the terms and conditions for every change.

However, I will concede that there should be clause in there for updates to become binding 14 days after notice of change. That gives two weeks from the time they are updated until they come into force, two weeks for users to read and decide if they are willing to accept them, query them or whatever else. It should also be communicated to users by email and a two week announcement on the boards, so all attempts have been made to inform the user.

It's standard practice really, if the terms of a contract change you receive X days notice about the changes and have the option to refuse within those X days.

johnnyskeleton

TouchingVirus wrote: »

If I no longer accessed my Paypal email account, and was offline for the week after they announced it then I wouldn't know about the changes but every time I used the site would have been deemed to accept those new T&C's

I disagree that users should be asked to explicitly accept the terms and conditions for every change.

Well, at least by sending an email there is a bit more notice than simply logging in and "by the way, the terms of use have changed". Arbitrary I know, but what if someone found something in them very objectionable and by logging in was deemed to have accepted them? At the very least, perhaps a full screen with nothing but a link to the new T&Cs etc and an option to continue to boards.ie. That way, people who don't care will simply ignore it as is their wont, but no-one can say they were not warned.

However, I will concede that there should be clause in there for updates to become binding 14 days after notice of change. That gives two weeks from the time they are updated until they come into force, two weeks for users to read and decide if they are willing to accept them, query them or whatever else. It should also be communicated to users by email and a two week announcement on the boards, so all attempts have been made to inform the user.

It's standard practice really, if the terms of a contract change you receive X days notice about the changes and have the option to refuse within those X days.

Exactly.

Wibbs

RE copyright? Maybe a rejig that states "By agreeing to Boards T&C, users agree to allow Boards to utilise a users content purely for the sake of publication and moderation on Boards and such copyright only exists within Boards as an entity and cannot be used of Boards in any other way without prior consent. As such the user reserves full copyright on their own content outside Boards"? Only in solicitor speak.

I do think copyright may be an issue down the line. Not just on here either. TBH it was the thing that jumped out for me. I was mostly thinking of the photo and creative writing bods, but IMHO as much as this is a site for people talking, the user generated content will become more and more the reason people may read. Look at the ratio on many forums of content providers/users and viewers/lurkers. There is an order of magnitude more views than posts and more viewers than posters. Indeed there are quite a few forums I read but have never posted in. I read them like I would read a periodical.

This kind of thing, especially a place like Boards, which compared to most free for all forums has a helluva lot of content to be viewed and enjoyed and this will become bigger I reckon. While most of us go on about the community etc, we're viewed as much as interacted with. I know a fair few who read posts here and never register. I would see this place as much of a newspaper as a community. Maybe not quite yet, but getting there.

Heading off any possible copyright issues now rather than later can only be a good thing and with respect I dont think this has been copperfastened quite yet. Yes Conor's post made a lot of sense, but still there are holes in this.

I post here for all sorts of reasons. Like everyone else. Boards does not own my or anyone elses content. Our free content makes this place the cool place it is. Personally speaking if boards used any of my or anyone elses generated content without consent I would not be a happy bunny. Many others would feel the same. We are the content. The users, the mods the admins, but from a pure numbers standpoint the users most of all. That should be protected and clearly so IMHO.

DonkeyStyle \o/

Dav wrote: »

It's not so much a case of "tough shít, we own it" as you say it's more "think twice about what you write, it might come back to haunt you."

Well yeah I can see the problem with boards making any effort to clean up after people... washing your hands of it and leaving it 100% up to the user is probably the ideal position.

What about my other suggestion about making the account un-recoverable?
Take this scenario: Some old email account I don't use gets hacked, hacker recovers "lost" password to old boards account I don't use, posts a lot of shít I won't see.
It'd be nice to have a better option to close an account more effectively... say something like:
-Account perma-banned
-Password scrambled
-Forgotten password email assigned to null@boards.ie

That's do-able and much closer to closing an account than simply not using it any more.

norrie rugger

Darragh wrote: »

If you suggest something to help the site and you publish it and you say "here, I made this for you", don't come to us saying "give me money for it". If you want to do that, make it clear from the start. However, if you suggest something and we take it, we're under no obligation to pay you for it.

(though we probably will, anyways, if it's good enough)

Any clearer?

May have been answered already but the person may say "here, I made this for you" and mean that he made it for the use and better function, of the boards.ie community. Not that he hands ownership of it to you to utilise, outside this specific site or designated function

Pacing Mule

In it's most simplistic form I see boards.ie as a club providing a free service. The owners of that club should be entitled to set the rules of that club. This may be driven from a legitimate protection of themselves or not but either way it's up to the members of the club to decide if they want to remain members or not. If not off they go and form their own club where they can set the rules to suit themselves. There are no fees being paid so this isn't a case of what I paid for I am no longer getting.

Obviously boards.ie is the sum of all it's posters and without the posters the boards.ie club would not be as big or successful as it is, feedback on upcoming changes etc should be given and considered but that's as far as it goes for me. Some of the posts here have been very "them vs us" orientated and if you feel that you constantly need to be rebelling against the higher powers of boards.ie then you're probably better off starting your own board.

Pretty much all forum board software stores everything inputted in a database. Anyone with access to that database could potentially read the contents of a private message. It's not something unique to boards.ie - it's a technological fact for most sites ( unless you go to the hassle of encrypting messages but then somewhere along the line there is a process to decrypt them which could be accessed )

Darragh

I'm reading all this feedback and preparing a response. Some excellent points being raised, thank you.

Wibbs

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

In it's most simplistic form I see boards.ie as a club providing a free service. The owners of that club should be entitled to set the rules of that club. This may be driven from a legitimate protection of themselves or not but either way it's up to the members of the club to decide if they want to remain members or not. If not off they go and form their own club where they can set the rules to suit themselves. There are no fees being paid so this isn't a case of what I paid for I am no longer getting.

I agree. The "club" has to protect itself and actually in doing so protects its users. I post something sueable(if even a word:)) and its not spotted and dealt with then the first port of call for an ambulance chaser is Boards.ie. They get the solicitors bills. We've seen before when this happened and also saw that Boards will fight this and fair bloody play too. So on that score there is a value added users get that isnt obvious until it happens to them.

Pretty much all forum board software stores everything inputted in a database. Anyone with access to that database could potentially read the contents of a private message. It's not something unique to boards.ie - it's a technological fact for most sites

+1. It may make for some interesting times ahead too. If places and others like it become the news and opinion broadcasting services for the mainstream and IMHO they will. I dont put much faith in webstats google clicks etc. TBH I think it a lot of smoke and mirrors, but I really can see the above happening. Where people may pick a weakness, especially those from the older mainstream conduits is copyright. Or at least that has the potential to stifle things. I would even go so far as to make it a rule that if someone posts stuff from a link on another site, that they have to also post the link. Sounds far fetched? I dunno. As traditional media gets squeezed they will fight back IMHO.

Calina

@Darragh - on the subject of the photography, have a talk with pix.ie - I know they had to deal with the issue of copyright etc there.

On the wider question of copyright and reproducibility - and I really only had a moment to scan through this - many of the photographs shown in the Photography forum are not served by boards servers, but by Flickr, Pix.ie, Photobucket and a few other places. In that case, I suspect use of the photographs is governed by their T&Cs and not by boards per se....would this be correct? Otherwise you'd be claiming equivalent rights on - for example - inline posted Youtube videos.

regards


Calina

Conor

Fajitas! wrote: »

Take the word modify, whilst it means a moderator being able to edit the content of a post if needed - It can be read as being able to modify an image posted... If you get me?

Yes, but how do you distinguish between:

• Boards.ie Ltd modifying a photo for nefarious ends.
• A moderator resizing a photo so that it doesn't break the layout of a page.
• The Boards.ie software automatically resizing a photo to provide thumbnailing or mobile versions of an image.
• An Admin modifying a NSFW custom avatar to render it SFW.

?

The "modify" part of the clause has to be somewhat open-ended or else it prevents us from developing the site in ways that we haven't already thought of.

Fajitas! wrote: »

Without this sounding smart, have you sat down and ran this through with someone with legal knowledge in digital copyrights and IT law?

Absolutely.

Conor

cooperguy wrote: »

What is it limited to though? If its limited to what it says in the rest of that sentance then you could possibly do what it say in my examples. Unless there is another sentence specifying limitations?

As I understand it, the "limited" bit refers to limiting the license to "in connection with Boards.ie or the promotion thereof". As in, Boards.ie Ltd couldn't take your content and use it to promote Daft.ie or DERI or Eirtaku or anything else that Boards.ie Ltd directors/employees are involved with.

cooperguy wrote: »

<edit> Maybe to give you the ability to edit posts you could add: We reserve the right to modify/edit/delete content displayed on boards.ie deemed to be in breach of forum or "terms of use" rules.

While that would be a good direction for change we'd also need the ability to modify/edit/delete content if that was necessary to provide a new feature on the site. Since we can't predict all future features, it's kinda hard to word that.

Conor

Red Sleeping Beauty wrote: »

Say I don't think hard enough about what I post and pleasantly request for a previous post to be edited/deleted is there any room for negotiation here?

There's always room for helping people out with a polite request for limited modification of posts.

Red Sleeping Beauty wrote: »

John/Cloud has access too does he not?

Only to reported posts. He does not have direct database access anymore.

Herbal Deity

Under the Data Protection Act, does anything I post, or at least anything I post which contains sensitive personal information, on Boards constitute personal information being stored by Boards? If not, why not? If so, can I not ask for my posts to be removed at any time? I believe I, as a data subject, have the right to request that a data controller, such as Boards.ie, erase/destroy any personal information held on me.

I don't think keeping posts which contain sensitive personal information in the Boards.ie database, let alone them being publicly viewable, against the poster's wishes is strictly legal. I don't think it matters that the poster submitted them voluntarily at the time, I think they have the legal right to change their mind and decide they don't want Boards to be holding on to their posts or displaying them publicly.

Conor

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Under the Data Protection Act, does anything I post, or at least anything I post which contains sensitive personal information, on Boards constitute personal information being stored by Boards? If not, why not? If so, can I not ask for my posts to be removed at any time? I believe I, as a data subject, have the right to request that a data controller, such as Boards.ie, erase/destroy any personal information held on me.

I don't think keeping posts which contain sensitive personal information in the Boards.ie database, let alone them being publicly viewable, against the poster's wishes is strictly legal. I don't think it matters that the poster submitted them voluntarily at the time, I think they have the legal right to change their mind and decide they don't want Boards to be holding on to their posts or displaying them publicly.

This is covered in the privacy policy.

We deal with DPA issues on a case-by-case basis. If you have a specific issue with personal details relating to you in a specific post (whether by you or others) then contact us and we'll deal with it.

Paulw

Conor wrote: »

Yes, but how do you distinguish between:

• Boards.ie Ltd modifying a photo for nefarious ends.
• A moderator resizing a photo so that it doesn't break the layout of a page.
• The Boards.ie software automatically resizing a photo to provide thumbnailing or mobile versions of an image.
• An Admin modifying a NSFW custom avatar to render it SFW.

I, like many of the photographers on boards, am concerned about some of the new T&Cs, especially relating to copyright.

I think that boards.ie needs to clarify that the copyright will always remain with the owner of any images posted.

I totally understand the needs for boards.ie to control content. The issue of avatars, resizing, etc is needed, but yet this should be worded in a way to distinguish this separate from simply claiming the right to them.

But, as Calina said, the vast majority of photos posted on boards.ie reside elsewhere, and so would be covered under section 8.1. The photos are generally hosted on sites you have no control of (pix.ie, flickr.com, etc). I gather then, that you are not claiming copyright of that content??

It would be good to clarify these things.

As for Section 4 - I think many sections actually allow posting of copyright material, which is not owned by the poster (as highlighted, the motors section, the soccer section, etc). I guess it might be a case that the mods there need to start enforcing these rules, and removing copyright content.

Just my 2c.

TouchingVirus

Paulw wrote: »

As for Section 4 - I think many sections actually allow posting of copyright material, which is not owned by the poster (as highlighted, the motors section, the soccer section, etc). I guess it might be a case that the mods there need to start enforcing these rules, and removing copyright content.

Just my 2c.

I don't think that it should be the moderator's job to judge what content is copyrighted and what isn't. I think that once a claim for infringement comes in that Boards.ie should remove the infringing content and perhaps warn the offending user about it. Mods are not copyright control police IMO

This 'reaction' seems to be enough for filesharing websites with copyrighted content on them, so I can't see why it wouldn't be good enough for boards.

sceptre

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Under the Data Protection Act, does anything I post, or at least anything I post which contains sensitive personal information, on Boards constitute personal information being stored by Boards? If not, why not? If so, can I not ask for my posts to be removed at any time? I believe I, as a data subject, have the right to request that a data controller, such as Boards.ie, erase/destroy any personal information held on me.

I don't think keeping posts which contain sensitive personal information in the Boards.ie database, let alone them being publicly viewable, against the poster's wishes is strictly legal. I don't think it matters that the poster submitted them voluntarily at the time, I think they have the legal right to change their mind and decide they don't want Boards to be holding on to their posts or displaying them publicly.

I've got limited time as it's Christmas Eve but the data protection commissioner has an excellent site which contains some really good information. Rather than me rooting out and quoting from sections of the 1988 and 2003 acts (Christmas eve etc), if you have a good look there you'll see you're incorrect on having the right to request removal of posts. But if there are good reasons to remove specific pieces of information we can always see what we can do to help as we're not evil. Especially if someone else posts personal information in their posts about another user. As always, we advise being careful and choosy about the information you post on the web, including boards.ie. But an automatic right in the way you've described doesn't actually exist - you choose what you want to post about yourself.

Have a look at the site I've linked to - it's actually very informative and is a good (though obviously not perfect) substitute for reading and understanding the actual legislation. If you've specific questions after having a look there, any of us (including me) will be happy to answer them.

Conor

Paulw wrote: »

I, like many of the photographers on boards, am concerned about some of the new T&Cs, especially relating to copyright.

I think that boards.ie needs to clarify that the copyright will always remain with the owner of any images posted.

I totally understand the needs for boards.ie to control content. The issue of avatars, resizing, etc is needed, but yet this should be worded in a way to distinguish this separate from simply claiming the right to them.

We don't claim any copyright on the material you post. There is a distinction between the person who holds the copyright (you) and the company that is licensed to do certain, limited things with that copyrighted work (us).

The distinction between being a copyright owner and licensee can be a little confusing, I admit, but it's worth understanding the difference.

For anyone worried about losing their copyright, it's worth reading Section 120 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, in particular this part:

An assignment of the copyright in a work, whether in whole or in part, is not effective unless it is in writing and signed by or on behalf of the assignor.

in other words, you can't "lose" copyright unless you explicitly choose to, in writing. You can license a work without transferring copyright and that's precisely what we do here.

In general, I'd urge anyone who regularly deals with copyrighted material (authors, photographers, librarians, software developers, etc) to read the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. It's full of very useful information which you really need to know if you're going to effectively manage your work.

Paulw wrote: »

But, as Calina said, the vast majority of photos posted on boards.ie reside elsewhere, and so would be covered under section 8.1. The photos are generally hosted on sites you have no control of (pix.ie, flickr.com, etc). I gather then, that you are not claiming copyright of that content??

As above, we don't claim copyright on anything you create.

As for licensing that third-party content, I don't know enough about copyright law to understand if they have a distinction between something hosted on X and displayed on X versus something hosted on Y and displayed on X. TBH, I'd be surprised if there was any Irish case law on that matter.

Common sense (and the way I would like it to be interpreted) is that those images hosted on pix.ie, flickr, etc are subject to the T&Cs of those sites and that an image served from pix.ie and embedded inline on boards.ie is not considered to be part of boards.ie and hence boards.ie doesn't need a license to do so. I can't guarantee that the law allows us to interpret the world that way though.

Paulw

Conor wrote: »

As for licensing that third-party content, I don't know enough about copyright law to understand if they have a distinction between something hosted on X and displayed on X versus something hosted on Y and displayed on X. TBH, I'd be surprised if there was any Irish case law on that matter.

Common sense (and the way I would like it to be interpreted) is that those images hosted on pix.ie, flickr, etc are subject to the T&Cs of those sites and that an image served from pix.ie and embedded inline on boards.ie is not considered to be part of boards.ie and hence boards.ie doesn't need a license to do so. I can't guarantee that the law allows us to interpret the world that way though.

Yeah, that would be an interesting issue for a solicitor to voice opinion on, since it would very much impact on the photography section of boards.ie

Section 7.1 of the new T&Cs
By making a submission to us, you grant a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, unlimited, assignable, sublicenseable, fully paid up and royalty free right to us to copy, prepare derivative works from, improve, distribute, publish, remove, retain, add, and use and commercialise, in any way now known or in the future discovered, anything that you submit to us, without any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or to any third parties.

I guess that is the section that most photographers (can't speak for other posters) would have issue with.

IMHO, these are too broad and open. I certainly won't be posting any more photos, especially when my content is then open to boards.ie to "use and commercialise" "without any further consent, notice and/or compensation".

Kanye

Rofl.


Rrroooffflll.


Terms of use: "We own you and everything you do."

Admins: "No no, it just says that. C'mon, guys, we'd never actually use that against you. You're our friends."

This is a legally-binding agreement. There's no two ways about that. Thank the lawd for contra proferentam.

Conor

Paulw wrote: »

Yeah, that would be an interesting issue for a solicitor to voice opinion on, since it would very much impact on the photography section of boards.ie

I'm guessing the opinion would be something along the lines of "there hasn't been a test case, try not to be it".

Paulw wrote: »

"use and commercialise"

If we don't have this ability, it's my understanding that we couldn't display any submission on this site since the commercial support of this site would preclude us displaying it.

Paulw wrote: »

"without any further consent, notice and/or compensation".

As I understand it, we need this to allow us to add features to the site without having to re-acquire permission from all the rights holders.

We'd love to get suggestions for specific wording which would not bind us unduly while protecting the rights of the copyright owners to reasonably control their work.

Conor

Kanye wrote: »

Rofl.


Rrroooffflll.


Terms of use: "We own you and everything you do."

Admins: "No no, it just says that.

No, it doesn't say that

Do you have anything useful to offer?

Kanye

Conor wrote: »

No, it doesn't say that

Do you have anything useful to offer?

Yes.

Anyone who feels their professional or work life might be effected by the new TOU document should seek independent legal advice.

Relying on boards.ie Ltd's interpretation of a legally-binding document it's produced itself is not advisable.

masteroftherealm

Conor wrote: »

We don't claim any copyright on the material you post. There is a distinction between the person who holds the copyright (you) and the company that is licensed to do certain, limited things with that copyrighted work (us).

The distinction between being a copyright owner and licensee can be a little confusing, I admit, but it's worth understanding the difference.

For anyone worried about losing their copyright, it's worth reading Section 120 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000, in particular this part:



in other words, you can't "lose" copyright unless you explicitly choose to, in writing. You can license a work without transferring copyright and that's precisely what we do here.

In general, I'd urge anyone who regularly deals with copyrighted material (authors, photographers, librarians, software developers, etc) to read the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000. It's full of very useful information which you really need to know if you're going to effectively manage your work.



As above, we don't claim copyright on anything you create.

As for licensing that third-party content, I don't know enough about copyright law to understand if they have a distinction between something hosted on X and displayed on X versus something hosted on Y and displayed on X. TBH, I'd be surprised if there was any Irish case law on that matter.

Common sense (and the way I would like it to be interpreted) is that those images hosted on pix.ie, flickr, etc are subject to the T&Cs of those sites and that an image served from pix.ie and embedded inline on boards.ie is not considered to be part of boards.ie and hence boards.ie doesn't need a license to do so. I can't guarantee that the law allows us to interpret the world that way though.

I dont want boards to have a commercial license to my work, as a media professional licenses are my paychecks, and misuse of my work by boards could result in major legal complications for any professionals working with licensees.
I am not worried about losing my copyright, that's never been the issue, its granting boards a free usage license to reproduce that's the issue.
I would not grant anyone a free and unsigned license to reproduce my work at their leisure, that's the equivalent of shooting myself in the head professionally.

I seriously urge you to talk the photographs/created media area of these T&C's over with a Media Rights lawyer, which you have not to date as far as I can see.