Redeveloped website; ethical corporate behavior

[BethLasser]

Hello-

I am posting this question to gather information for my internship research project.

Currently, I am interning at a company that is redeveloping its website to incorporate more user-generated content, such as photos and videos. The redeveloped site will require users to agree to terms and conditions that grant the company a non-exclusive license to use the user-generated content as it chooses. The company is very aware that these types of terms are controversial because of the potential for exploitation. However, it has no intention of changing them.

Despite this, the company is eager to keep its website users loyal and happy. It also wants to behave ethically (and maintain its well-known reputation for doing so).

There has been some discussion of creating a code of ethics for dealing with user-generated content. However, if such a policy were developed, it would be meant for internal use only; the public would not be aware of it.

Under these circumstances, what would the company need to do to ensure user satisfaction and keep its ethical reputation intact?

Would consistent behaviour in terms of not licensing or selling user-generated content to third parties be sufficient? What more could it do?

Your opinions or any advice you could provide would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,
Beth Lasser

 

[Trotter]

There has been some discussion of creating a code of ethics for dealing with user-generated content. However, if such a policy were developed, it would be meant for internal use only; the public would not be aware of it.

If they want to deal ethically, they should be up front about it. They should have nothing to hide. ALL the terms and conditions that apply to submitted materials MUST be available to the donor, and are usually contained in the EULA.

 

[BethLasser]

When the issue of an ethical code was raised, my natural assumption was that it would be posted on the site. However, the person I was speaking with preferred it to be an internal code. While she does not have the final say, she is in a very influential position to be heard on the matter. Unfortunately, she did not elaborate on her reasons against transparency.

I assume it has something to do with the potential of the ethical code not being financially viable given changes at the company. One can imagine that publicizing an ethical code and then rescinding it would, of course, create a tremendous amount of bad blood.

 

[KSoD]

Having your Ethical Code visable to the world would not be bad blood. Not having it up and not being up front about what using the site means. That would generate bad blood.

You MUST tell the users that the stuff they put on the site therefor belongs to the site. If not and the user sees the material on another site or in a advert or something then the company is liable for all costs and everything that comes with it. Ethical code or not. If hidden that is. If it is viewed by everyone who uses the site then they can do as they wish.

If they want the site to stay popular then let the users decide. Let them have input. Let them have feedback as to what they want. Not jst what the company wants to offer them.

So you think a site like this would have been around for this long if we only did what we wanted and not what the members wanted?

With the representative being very cloak and dagger only tells me that they are not very ethical and will be doing something shady with hte material.

 

[Trotter]

The company I work for is huge on ethics and ethical behavior. our entire business system is built on it and around it. Everything we do is laid out, both for us internally as well for all externally. Part of being ethical is doing what you say you will do. If the company plans on rescinding or radically altering their terms, they are not acting in an ethical manner.

I am not an ethics major, but I do know a few things about such things. As an end user, I am entitled to know the whole policy involving me and my submissions. While I am sure Australia's laws differ some from those of the US, the two of them probably say basically the same thing. Besides, by hiding the actual terms of disclosure, the company could be setting themselves up for a lawsuit should anything go awry along the way.

 

[BethLasser]

I am not referring to the terms and conditions. They are -- and will continue to be -- completely upfront about those. They are available to read on the site and are presented to visitors who choose to register. I am referring to a separate ethical code.

The terms and conditions grant the company a non-exclusive license. The company wants to keep that because, obviously, they don't know what technology will develop in the future and they want the flexibility to adapt the site (or their products) according to new trends.

When I say ethical code, I am referring to something separate. While the terms would grant a non-exclusive license, the code would dictate the reality of how the company uses the user-generated content.

I hope that clarifies the issue.

 

[Trotter]

Actually, no... it doesn't make it clearer. I am now confused.

Care to give some examples?

 

[BethLasser]

Alas, I don't have any examples. I am not sure that I can explain in a manner that's any clearer because I feel that there is a lot of contradiction inherent in what was proposed/suggested to me.

The terms and the ethical code would be separate. The terms (would) grant the company non-exclusive license to do what it wants with user-generated content. It pretty much uses the standard type of agreement that sites like Facebook and YouTube use. Again, they are keeping the terms as is to protect themselves from being limited by technological developments.

Because of this, some people at the company want to establish guidelines to ensure that the user-generated content does not get used in an exploitative manner (i.e. sold or licensed to a third-party without compensating the user). My concern is whether the guidelines need to be presented to the public or whether consistently ethical behavior is sufficient to convey the company's position. Can actions speak louder than words in this case?

 

[KSoD]

My question is still if you hide the Ethical terms which tells people how their content will be used, how do they know how it will be used. Maybe they do not wish for their content to be used in a way that they plan on using it for. What do you do then?

If they can not be honest to the users about EVERYTHING, then there is something wrong. I have only known i other site that hide things like this. They didnt last long...

 

[BethLasser]

I think you are confusing the two still.

The terms are upfront about what the company has the LEGAL RIGHT to do. Those are there for people to read. Knowing that their material could be used in a number of manners, the user has the right/ability to not post or to remove their content if they do not believe the terms are fair.

The ethical code would guide the company's actions to ensure that they did not exploit people. Even though the company would have the right to sell a posted photo to one of its B2B partners, the guidelines would ensure that it did not do so without compensating the contributor.

Also, please note I said RESCINDING an established ethical code would create bad blood. The EXISTENCE of an ethical code would not.

That's the best I can do. If you don't understand, I'm sorry.

In any event, what was the company that failed?

(The company I am working for has had its site for nearly a decade I believe. The website is not its main product or business.)