Redeveloped website; ethical corporate behavior

[KSoD]

I am not confusing the 2. You said yourself that the TOS says they tell them they have all rights to do what they wish with the material. Fine. But the Ethics code which will be hidden will say what they plan on doing. So how is that full disclosure?

You tell them you will do what you want with the data. But then not tell them what that is when you know what it is.

so how are they to know that the way you plan on using this info is what they wish for it to be used for? I mean what if it is used for a ad or something that the person who upladed it doesnt believe in?

I am not confused at all. I see the full facts that they are not wishing to give full disclosure. They wish to be very cloak and dagger with what their plans are for the material given. To me that is not ethical at all. If they have any thoughts or plans on what they want to do it should be known.

I mean i see you talk abou thte photo being sold without compensation. What if they believe in free software or the Free License use? If you have that in your Ethical terms which are hidden they would never know this and therefor would not know NOT to post the material.

I am looking at this from a end user aspect. Knowing what my material can be used for and what i want it used for. I would never want my material sold as it isnt right. We pay for enough things on the web and that is why i stopped going to a certain site cause they were selling my answers.

So i hope you understand where i am coming from. I do understand the TOS and Ethical code difference. I do understand what you mean. But you do not seem to understand what i mean. I hope i have cleared that up for you.

 

[BethLasser]

Now we're getting somewhere!

The terms are very broadly written (see YouTube's for an example), and the ethical code would limit them. The code wouldn't give the company additional (or undisclosed) rights. It would LIMIT its use of the rights that it legally has, the rights that a user has already agreed to.

If someone believed in free use, they would know before registering with the site that there was the potential that their content could be sold or licensed to a third party. They would have the option not to register or post content. The potential is completely outlined. Corporate restrictions on that potential (under what was proposed) are not.

Let's assume full disclosure is not an option with regard to the ethical code. (Again, the terms and conditions are very explicitly presented to users.) I was asking if there was an alternative to presenting the ethical code. Would consistent ethical behavior on the company's part be sufficient? Would actions speak louder than words?

Of course, no is a potential answer. If that's what you think, that is entirely valid. There are obvious contradictions with this proposed situation.

You tell them you will do what you want with the data. But then not tell them what that is when you know what it is.

The thing is the company does not know what it will do with the content. That is why it wants to keep the broad terms. Again, should technology develop that makes the company either changes its products or its website, the broad terms allow it to adapt the content accordingly. This does not necessarily involve selling or licensing material to a third party. This could very well relate to internal changes at the company.

I hope that is a bit clearer. Your response certainly helped me better understand where you were coming from.

 

[KSoD]

If full disclosure is not a option then, again in all honesty, i think that there is something that is trying to be hidden. I am still looking at it like this.

You have the TOS up. Now people do know that the stuff they put up can potentially be used for sale to 3rd parties or whatever. Now say that 5 years down the road they use this same stuff to create a image or graphics or product for someone else after they had uploaded it to this companies site.

Now they have not visited this site in some time and frankly forgot about it. So they didnt remove it. Now who's property is it? Does the company sue for rights and some money cause it was on thier site?

Same thing just reversed. Technology advances and somethign that someone uploads can be used for some gain. But this person also knows it. But before they remove it the company uses this material for gain but the user removes it, again after the company had already started thei progress toward the technology. So what happens then. They had rights but they were removed when the user took the material off of the site.

Ethics is a toss up subject. Because i can sit here and argue all for the user. But at the same time you can give me perfect examples as to why the company would be right.

In my honest opinion some part of the Ethics code shold be available to the public to read. Some people, myself included, woudl like to know the full extent as to what can and possibly could be done with my material.

Maybe not full disclosure. But what you have stated here on a page would be sufficent for most people.

 

[Trotter]

If I am reading this right, Beth, the TOS is given to an uploader which outlines what the image(s) will be used for. The "ethics code" is an internal document that lays down what the company will or will not do with the materials, a set of guidelines/rules.

What is confusing is why the company would not simply abide by the same set of terms given to the user to start with. Setting up a double standard, even if the internal standard is much stricter than that shown to the users, is still unneeded confusion. The rules should be streamlined and overarching, not split between two involved entities.

If the company wants to adhere to a higher standard, but reserve the right to toe the letter of the TOS when the conditions merit it, so be it. but it is rather hypocritical of them to put together some internal guidelines knowing that they will be ignored, altered, or trashed on down the line.

 

[atomic tofu]

just do some research and you'll see this is often done...what I hear is the site deviantart.com does this? However, most that use it either don't care or don't know....

if anyone could straighten me out on that...i'm lazy and on dialup

 

[BethLasser]

Makaveli: A non-exclusive license does not grant the company ownership; copyright does. A non-exclusive license gives the company permission to use the material. This issue seems to be focusing more on the terms, which is not my concern at this point. Also, quite frankly, the poster should keep better track of his work if he is genuinely concerned about such things. He agreed to the terms, so he put himself in a position to suffer the consequences.

Trotter: One of my friends who works at the company and I have been having a similar discussion for days now. She says what about restricting the terms against x, y or z so that they would mirror what the company wants in an ethical code, and I usually think of a way that the company is already doing x, y or z.

For example, she said something like "Why don't they cut the part of the terms that say they may license or sell your material to a third party?" The thing is they might not sell your material specifically, but the company is entering deals where ALL the material posted on the website will be viewable on a third party site. So while a given video might not be repurposed for a video game, DVD, etc., it may be available elsewhere.

We keep running into things like this. It's starting to give me a headache.

That's the delightful problem with legalese. If it's too narrow, the company shoots itself in the foot (and I don't mean that in a way that it can't "exploit" users). If it's too broad, it offends users and potentially allows someone at the company to run amuck and do what they feel is appropriate with UGC.

Atomic Tofu: People have repeatedly mentioned deviantART to me. I have looked at their terms, and they seem to be the standard non-exclusive license sort of thing. However, it includes a bit after how that, if a third party downloads a work, that person may potentially violate the third party. Despite your ufortunate dial-up situation, could you fill me in on what has happened with deviantART? Perhaps an incident or two?

 

[S0ULphIRE]

I'm no expert on ethnics but wouldn't the easiest solution be to ask the users to sign a media release form?
CISCO is making a promotional video/booklet, and at my colledge before we were filmed/photographed we were asked to sign a media release form. On the form were various levels of content exposure to which we agreed to.
e.g. check boxes for
if we agreed to have our photo used on their website
if we agreed to let a video of us 'networking' be played at other colledges
etc.
That way, everyone is aware of what is happening, and you/they are aware of what they have agreed too also.
If anyone doesn't want to participate, they don't have to.

 

[KSoD]

Yet again that is not a valid point. No one knows if something they place on the net today will be of value or use in a year let alone in any undisclosed time in the future. So to say that it is up to the person to keep track of their material for all time is not at all a accurate statement.

I bet that the company doesnt remember some of the things it put up on it web page when it started let alone know what could be done with the stuff on there now in 5 years.

So to say that it is up to a person to know and to foresee the future is just wrong. I take several screenshots of thigns i see on the web daily. Does that mean in the future when i see the site get changed that i can use this info against them? No.

the polain and simple fact of the matter is the internet is not to be governed. Waht the company is trying to do is just that. They want to govern their site. Granted that has to be done. But to sit there and say they have rights to something for all time when no one can see the future is garbage. No one has rights to something for all time but the original author.

For this company to lay claim to someone original work for a period of time that they deem fit is garbage. There is also somethign called the statute of limitations. Which states you can only claim rights to it for 7 years unless you copyright it and to do that you have to be the original author. Unless you have fully compensated them.

Plain and simple i have said it several times now. The company is being shady. They are trying to lay claim to stuff that isnt their without giving full knowledge to the people using the site of what can happen and for how long the material belongs to the site.

I bet if the users knew that they lost all rights to the work forever when putting the material on the site....they would find another site to use.

 

[S0ULphIRE]

Mak, they aren't losing all rights to the work! They are simply giving the company the right to use it as well. And they would only lose sole ownership of that work by choice. Their choice. If they want to keep total copyright over it, they can. And the release form can be modified to only be valid for a month if they so choose. Then, once a month has gone by, the company no longer has any right to use the information from the user.

You are trying to take things to extremes by saying they will lose ALL rights, for ALL time. Of course that isn't true. And sure, someone like you could take a screenshot of the info, but I'm sure the people who's own the information know this and wouldn't allow anything they wanted to keep private, or copyright later, to be owned by the company too.

the (plain) and simple fact of the matter is the internet is not to be governed.

I think you're misinterpreting the scenario. The company isn't trying to go behind the users back and steal their work and never give it back. I believe the company wants to post pictures of the employees on it's website, viewable only by other employees. They want to be trusted by their employees and make sure they won't be deceiving anyone.

They aren't trying to govern the internet at all, they are trying to use their users data, but with their permission.

 

[BethLasser]

Soulphire: Thanks for getting my back! The scenario you presented re: Cisco is an interesting alternative and definitely one I will raise when I speak to the powers that be.

Makaveli: You make some valid points. However, I feel that you may be looking at this in a very philosophical kind of way, and realistically (and unfortunately), that is not practical for my purposes (even in the academic sense).

That said, based on the initially proposed scenario, is there a viable alternative to not publicizing the ethical code (again, the terms and conditions are completely upfront)? Would consistent good behavior (i.e. getting permission and buying the copyright before licensing/on-selling) be sufficient? Or is this company assuming that its loyal customers and website visitors are trusting?

Thanks for your responses! Keep 'em coming!