Content theft - need some advice

[CAG CheechDogg]

@ ProSportsForums

Are you saying that "I" am saying a ToS gives the site owner the right to "carte blanche"?

I have the following in my ToS:

"7. Submission of Content on this Web Site

By providing any Content to our web site such as text, tutorials, reviews, previews, written articles, images, artwork;

(a) you agree to grant to us a perpetual worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive right and license to use, display, reproduce, modify, publish, archive, translate, and to create derivative projects such as tournaments, competitions and compilations, in whole or in part. Such agreement to the license will apply with respect to any form, media, technology known or later developed;

(b) you warrant and represent that you have all legal, moral, and other rights that may be necessary to grant us with the license set forth in this Section 7;

(c) you acknowledge and agree that we shall have the right to remove and or block any access to any "CONTENT" you provide by uploading, or add by means of text into our forums or in articles you submit, but not obligation to remove it only at our sole discretion."

That doesn't mean I am going to reproduce the content but by registering and creating an account the registered member(s) explicitly agree to our Terms of Service.

If you and I are on the same page that doesn't mean that what happened with the OP and the other party is justified by any ToS or even copyright. The other party, if this is the OP's database has stolen their property in this case their (database) regardless of who posted what on the OP's forum or site. This "can" be resolved by what I suggested the OP do with just a simple letter to beging with.

So yes, proving damages is going to be very difficult.

[In Omnibus]

Originally Posted by CAG CheechDogg

@ ProSportsForums

Are you saying that "I" am saying a ToS gives the site owner the right to "carte blanche"?

I have the following in my ToS:

"7. Submission of Content on this Web Site

By providing any Content to our web site such as text, tutorials, reviews, previews, written articles, images, artwork;

(a) you agree to grant to us a perpetual worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive right and license to use, display, reproduce, modify, publish, archive, translate, and to create derivative projects such as tournaments, competitions and compilations, in whole or in part. Such agreement to the license will apply with respect to any form, media, technology known or later developed;

(b) you warrant and represent that you have all legal, moral, and other rights that may be necessary to grant us with the license set forth in this Section 7;

(c) you acknowledge and agree that we shall have the right to remove and or block any access to any "CONTENT" you provide by uploading, or add by means of text into our forums or in articles you submit, but not obligation to remove it only at our sole discretion."

That doesn't mean I am going to reproduce the content but by registering and creating an account the registered member(s) explicitly agree to our Terms of Service.

If you and I are on the same page that doesn't mean that what happened with the OP and the other party is justified by any ToS or even copyright. The other party, if this is the OP's database has stolen their property in this case their (database) regardless of who posted what on the OP's forum or site. This "can" be resolved by what I suggested the OP do with just a simple letter to beging with.

So yes, proving damages is going to be very difficult.

No. I am agreeing with your post. A member consents to the site having the posted material by posting the material. That does not give the site owner legal right to post the material elsewhere nor to sell the material. That is where the ownership issue falls short for the site owner. The member who posted the material is, of course, free to post it anywhere he or she chooses. In the unlikely event a site owner did attempt to sell posted material or to reproduce it on another site the member who originally posted it would still have to prove damages.

Your TOS sets you apart from most forums in that you are specific as to the rights you are requesting in the TOS. I can tell you that I would never agree to your terms.

[Max Taxable]

Originally Posted by ProSportsForums

That does not give the site owner legal right to post the material elsewhere nor to sell the material. That is where the ownership issue falls short for the site owner. The member who posted the material is, of course, free to post it anywhere he or she chooses. In the unlikely event a site owner did attempt to sell posted material or to reproduce it on another site the member who originally posted it would still have to prove damages.

Your TOS sets you apart from most forums in that you are specific as to the rights you are requesting in the TOS. I can tell you that I would never agree to your terms.

I am glad you now agree that the site owner owns the bits and bytes of information in his database.

However you have erected a strawman, since the owner selling or posting the material elsewhere was NOT part of the original argument. You have attempted to move the goalposts away from your original statement which was:

Originally Posted by ProSportsForums

Forum content is the property of the individual who posted the content.

No, it is not.

[Simon Lloyd]

Ok guys!, here's a link to a law sit on this subject http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98327

This may help a little too https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/...ility/overview

[In Omnibus]

Originally Posted by Simon Lloyd

Ok guys!, here's a link to a law sit on this subject http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98327

Did you happen to read her footer disclaimer?

I'm not a lawyer, but I play a researcher on the internet!

[Max Taxable]

That makes it pretty darn clear Simon, it's humorous to read that convoluted ToS statement and the opinion of the "attorney" there.

Thanks for the post!

[Simon Lloyd]

Hmmm maybe not, read xenforos account, now you know they've had legal issues...read on http://xenforo.com/community/threads...nership.25094/

--------------- Added [DATE]1350852665[/DATE] at [TIME]1350852665[/TIME] ---------------

Originally Posted by Max Taxable

That makes it pretty darn clear Simon, it's humorous to read that convoluted ToS statement and the opinion of the "attorney" there.

Thanks for the post!

Typical legaleese but thats it in a nutshell

[In Omnibus]

Originally Posted by Simon Lloyd

Hmmm maybe not, read xenforos account, now you know they've had legal issues...read on http://xenforo.com/community/threads...nership.25094/

Exactly on point. Excellent post.

[Max Taxable]

Originally Posted by Simon Lloyd

Hmmm maybe not, read xenforos account, now you know they've had legal issues...read on http://xenforo.com/community/threads...nership.25094/

--------------- Added [DATE]1350852665[/DATE] at [TIME]1350852665[/TIME] ---------------

Typical legaleese but thats it in a nutshell

THAT is quite interesting. Was this a US court? Would have been nice of them to post a link to the actual rulings, but I understand why they wouldn't want to do that.

Interesting also that the court seemed to rule that the ToS is more important than some might think.

--------------- Added [DATE]1350852994[/DATE] at [TIME]1350852994[/TIME] ---------------

Originally Posted by ProSportsForums

Exactly on point. Excellent post.

Yes, it contradicts what you said, that even if it is spelled out in the ToS who owns what, the person posting the material owns it. Clearly that isn't the case.

If it is spelled out clearly in the ToS that the site owns the content, then the site owns the content and the person posting it has no recourse.

I knew there was a reason I have had that in my ToS for these 11 years.

[In Omnibus]

Originally Posted by Max Taxable

THAT is quite interesting. Was this a US court? Would have been nice of them to post a link to the actual rulings, but I understand why they wouldn't want to do that.

Interesting also that the court seemed to rule that the ToS is more important than some might think.

--------------- Added [DATE]1350852994[/DATE] at [TIME]1350852994[/TIME] ---------------

Yes, it contradicts what you said, that even if it is spelled out in the ToS who owns what, the person posting the material owns it. Clearly that isn't the case.

If it is spelled out clearly in the ToS that the site owns the content, then the site owns the content and the person posting it has no recourse.

I knew there was a reason I have had that in my ToS for these 11 years.

Selective reading?

Jason said: ↑

The copyright argument doesn't necessarily hold weight in the U.S. (for those based here), where law requires a conveyance to transfer copyright if it's not work-for-hire. No click-through or site ToS will transfer copyright ownership in the U.S. (I doubt it would work for any property, which copyright is). What you really want is a non-exclusive license to use the content.