I find the $29 fee perfectly reasonable, so I'm glad that part of the misunderstanding was cleared, but I cannot understand when OCn claims that they own MY content. If i decide to post pictures of my hardware on my personal blog (I'm not even talking about a blog with ads, jsut a personal blog), but which I have also posted to OCN, I can't ? The same with my opinions ? Will I have to take two pictures, one from a slightly differrent angle in order to be able to post that one to my blog ? And rephrase my opinions so I can post them on my blog too ?
Oh, and let me make this perfectly clear, and hence excuse the huge lettering that will follow:
The claim that this kind of wording is perfectly normal since Facebook also owns what you say and your pictures is FALSE
The people I quote below have probably read that post on Facebook where some people where making a claim to won their content in response to Facebook's recent TOS change. That was all false, and Facebook quickly dismissed those claims
, because that sentiment did cause an uproar. I say quite a few misinformed friends get all riled up because of this situation.
Bottom line is, not even Facebook does this.
So Facebook issued somewhat of a clarification on Monday to explain what the change really meant.
"We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload," a statement from Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt read. And indeed, Facebook's terms of service do say that "User Content and Applications/Connect Sites" are exempt from its claims on content ownership.
It doesn't really matter if you guys are well intentioned and say that you won't enforce it, but the truth is, 1. for a newcomer it leaves a bad taste in the mouth which might mean he / she doesn't even register or contribute with reviews / photos / benchmarks; 2. management can change in the future and the truth is that whoever comes after might not think the same and really enforce those rules, so the best solution is to rewrite them to mean what you actually think on the matter. This is to say that there are other ways to legally phrasing it in order to keep everybody happy. One such example would give you guys some rights to use such information, for example, to put a certain post on the first page in order to accomplish a certain effect, but never to claim you actually own the said content, be it words and / or pictures.
Originally Posted by B NEGATIVE
In OCN's defense,this ToS is very common.......FB etc are all run in a similar vein.
False, see above.
Originally Posted by Biscuits_N_Gravy
Extremely active thread.
It should be more like:
-The member consents to OCN using the authors photos and content, but the watermarks and copyrights are still owned by the author. Watermarks should not be changed to reflect "OCN". Like when Failblog got in trouble for putting their watermark on tons of items that wasn't theirs. Essentially covering the watermarks of the sites that first modified the content.
-The author should still be able to post their review on their own blog, it is their property to do what ever they want with. It won't draw members and potential guest away from OCN. It may actually bring more guest here.
-I can kind of understand the charge to post it. The review is essentially advertising for the Sponsor. So the Sponsor should pay that fee.
I fully agree!
Originally Posted by RussianJ
Originally Posted by ljason8eg
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's not legal and therefore, invalid.
So if I post photos here they become the exclusive property of OCN? Bullcrap. They're mine, I own the copyright, I just choose to share them here.
As a law student I disagree. Funny though, thing is, in Canada this is legal. As OCN is based out of Canada, their law governs the ToS.
I would welcome you to read FB, [H], or many other sites' ToS. Same thing, perhaps slightly different wording but same legal directive.
Again, false, read above.
Originally Posted by RandomK
It's very simple:
OCN having unlimited use
of a poster's image/content =/= OCN owning
the intellectual property rights to said content.
In choosing to word their terms as they presently stand, OCN has made a clear choice. The difference is not trivial, as the former implies posting with an agreement to license OCN to use/distribute/modify the poster's content free of charge, and the later (currently in force) states that the poster surrenders all intellectual property rights to OCN the moment of posting. Therefore, [H] terms are in fact decidedly not
the same thing. Licensing your intellectual property free of charge in perpetuity and handing over the ownership of that intellectual property are simply not the same thing.
I'm glad to have spotted this thread as, like the majority of users, I never bothered to give the terms more than a cursory glance. I would bet there are a great many users who didn't even grant them that much attention. I still think OCN is a great forum, and a wonderful resource, but these terms seem a bit draconian. I know funding a community website is a difficult proposition, but softening the language in the terms would be a prudent choice IMHO. I would also tend to agree with another poster (a few pages back, sorry not quoted here) who stated that a rule that needs bending needs to be changed. There should be no reason that folks like the OP should have to negotiate some sort of exception to OCN's terms.
Edit: I'm no lawyer, but I have dealt with intellectual property litigation first-hand so I feel compelled to state that in the US at least, if the terms state that posting content means giving up intellectual property rights to said content, then that is in fact the way any disputes will be handled by the courts. OCN's terms are totally legal and identical to sites such as FaceBook which have similar rules.
Exactly, there are many different ways to write the TOS. As to saying Facebook's TOS says the same, you're wrong. See above.
Originally Posted by AlbertMwugabi
I always read the ToS very carefully, mostly since FB's ToS where basically everything you upload to the site is now owned by FB and can be used without any notice to the person who uploaded the image.
I read OCN's ToS very carefully before joining and was fully aware of their ToS and that's why I'm never ever is going to post some of my serious pictures here, they're to precious to me as a photographer. and i probably won't post any build logs here either, i want to be able to use the content on other sites as well.
The [sponsored] things, i don't really mind, it's a good way to keep the site fair. I see all the time on a Swedish site a specific case manufacturer sponsoring builds, but they never have ads on the site, they don't need to, because they get free advertising from the builders they sponsor.
||Ownership of Content Submissions||
All legal content, information or any other form of member submission, that conforms with the site rules/terms of service, immediately becomes exclusive property of Overclock.net
Again, false, read above, Facebbok does not own your content.
Originally Posted by Chipp
Originally Posted by EpicAMDGamer
Originally Posted by InsideJob
He could post it on the internet on behalf of OCN as OCN's property because yes, the digital copy of the image you upload that is on OCN's server is OCN property. Why you would want to disagree with that I don't know. I don't mind images of my rig being property of OCN, they're just images...
Minus a few important members (unless things change and they decide to return).
Which I don't see possible because as it's been pointed out, maybe the deletion was a misunderstanding however as Stren said there are still 2 other rules they are breaking. If these users are proceeded to be allowed to post the reviews in more places then just OCN then maybe things will turn around. However it's the rule of content uploaded here having to stay here and only here is the hindering factor in this circumstance.
I'm just worried that if I'd post the exact same pic that I uploaded here, to another form, OCN might come along and say, NO, that's mine!
We won't do that in any reasonable circumstance.
In fact, I've been here since almost the begining (2004) and can't remember a single incident where this kind of thing has been an issue. The ToS clause is a legal protection, but not something we actively pursue or enforce.
Chipp, I fully understand you're a reasonable person, but you ay not be around in the future and nothing guarantees me that your sucessor will as reasonable as you and behave the same way. As I said above, there are many way to write the TOS and safeguard the values you want without putting claims on people's content.