[OP]
Member
I was surprised to see some comments I posted here previously about the Leigh RTJ 400 in the "Reviews" section on the Leigh Jigs website https://www.leighjigs.com/rtj400_reviews.php
I suppose I don't mind that they used my comments, but I do take issue with having something I posted for the benefit of the SMC community being re-purposed as marketing material on a commercial website...
Does this happen frequently? Is it "allowable" per the SMC TOS?
Member
It clearly show it under the section "Customer Comments" and credits it coming from SMC.
I don't see that as a problem. Anything you post on most forums will be picked up from many, many other sources. Just consider search engines.
I'm sure they would remove it if you wished.
I agree. I did a Google search on 'Leigh RTJ400' and the 7th result returned was your SMC posting. If you post it on the internet in an unsecured location, its game-on.
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg".
– Samuel Butler
Member
I once had the New York Times use part of my interview with a figure they were profiling and they gave me partial credit for the content of the profile. I believe what Leigh did was legal under the Fair Use Act, but they could have shown you the courtesy by informing you they'd like to use it. However, it may be a case of better to ask forgiveness than permission.Originally Posted by Marty Tippin
Member
I'd find it flattering that they consider your comments well composed enough to incorporate into their marketing. Assuming you genuinely like the product and haven't been referenced out of context I see no harm on their part. Kudos for adding to the body of human knowledge publicly.
"A good miter set up is like yoga pants: it makes everyone's butts look good." Prashun Patel
Administrator
Marty,
According to section B of our Terms of Service:
B. Licensing
With respect to text or data entered into and stored by SawMill Creek, the submitting user retains ownership of such Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SawMill Creek. In any such case, the submitting user grants SawMill Creek the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
I have never allowed any person or company to publicly use any content from SawMill Creek Woodworkers Forums. Although there are provisions for me to do so it has never been done and if I was asked for permission i would insist that the author be contacted for permission to publish even though I am not required to do so....its the right thing to do IMO. I have sold DVD's of our File attachments in the past for a minimal fee in order to raise revenue to support TheCreek. On each DVD there is a text file that requires the author to be contacted for permission to use any picture or file that they own.
.
Contributor
Publishing something in any public forum does not void your copyright on that material. By agreeing to the TOS quoted above you've given SMC rights to use your copyright material. If Leigh doesn't have permission from you or your licensee (SMC) you can take a variety of actions from sending them a "cease and desist" letter to suing them for damages. Using such material without permission is bad form, and I'd find it unacceptable even if I might well have granted permission had they asked.
[OP]
Member
That's pretty much the way I feel - just because something is on a "public" website doesn't mean it's a free-for-all. And it's one thing to be quoted (for example) by someone writing an ostensibly non-commercial blog post but quite another to be quoted by a company whose intention is to use your comments for their own financial gain.
On the page I linked to in the original post, I'm quoted right next to an author from Fine Woodworking who (I'll bet) either was given the product for free in exchange for his review, or at minimum gets paid to write reviews as part of his full time job. Sure, it's flattering that they thought highly enough of my comments to use them, but I get nothing in return for their use while they get the benefit of people buying their product, in part because of my words. Does that sound like a fair deal?
I'll probably drop Leigh a line and ask them to either compensate me or remove the comments from their website. If people want to read my review, they can Google it easy enough...
Last edited by Marty Tippin; 12-01-2015 at 3:09 PM.
Contributor
Nice add Marty, well stated, I'd buy one after reading your terrific review.
Member
I had post on SMC about a woodworking tool used on someone web page. I just happened to run across it one day.
"Remember back in the day, when things were made by hand, and people took pride in their work?"
- Rick Dale
Contributor
Ha - they quoted me too!
Mike
Contributor
Keith, I think what this TOS means, in practice if not in intent, is that as far as the Owner of SMC is concerned, posters retain the rights to what they post. I don't think it grants me the poster a copyright all over the internet - it says that you don't claim a copyright. Do I interpret it right?
I admit that I'm no attorney, but I'm willing to bet that - whether I like it or not - if I post on the internet in a publically accessible place, it becomes public information and is therefore usable by these companies. Unless I say "copyright Fred Skelly 2015" or some such thing. Or unless Keith claims copyright for himself somewhere on his web page.
I don't like it either and I know I'll be seriously hacked off it ever happens to me. And I absolutely agree that the right thing to do is contact the poster via SMC and request permission. But I suspect they didn't break any intellectual property laws by failing to do so.
Last edited by Frederick Skelly; 12-01-2015 at 9:03 PM.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
“If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”
Contributor
Well, you did specifically mention their product in a public forum. Asking for compensation seems kinda of childish.
If you liked their product then what's the big deal.
No, I'm not affiliated with any company.
Administrator
Frederick,
I never felt that web sites that claim ownership to someones creative works is fair to the author so I specifically stated in our TOS that the owner maintains ownership of their work that is made available here. Because we host this forum and the intent of this Community is to share knowledge it was necessary for The Creek to have approval to provide public access to all content here.
Concerning the copyright I'm not a legal professional but I believe that your words, drawings or other means of sharing your creative thoughts are protected the same as a video or audio file that we already know cannot be copied or used without permission. Just because you share something publicly I expect that your copy protection is still intact and other people or organizations are not allowed to use your content without your permission. I can go to Google and listen to music but that doesn't give me the legal right to copy or save the file without compensating the owner.
Member
It's not unreasonable because there is an implied commercial endorsement used for commercial purposes. It's not unreasonable to ask for a benefit in exchange for the free use of the endorsement. Marty makes some good points. Some of those other endorsee's received compensation for their endorsement, but Marty did not.
I'd forgotten about another incident that happened to me other than the NY Times article. I had uploaded my son playing in his Buzz Lightyear Halloween outfit several years ago and Disney contacted me for permission to use those images in a commercial campaign. They sent me a consent letter as well as gave me some original Mickey Mouse drawings that were used as stills in a movie. Disney never ended up using my footage, but their legal department felt it necessary to get my permission to use the footage. I think the same thing may apply here as well. The only difference is that one is video "language" and the other is written "language".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote