Remember, this legal part is the underpinning. Unfortunately, it might be necessary, for the health of the site, to exclude people who do these things without intention - sad but true. This documents says that we can. There will be a guidelines document to go with it, which will be a policy document laying out how we are liable to interpret it. And just like the law, the fact that you can be prosecuted doesn't mean that you will be or should be, it just means that there is the legal basis to do it if necessary. In addition, there will be a guidelines for facilitators (aka moderators) which aims to have even standards of application. This will be a public document - absolutely no reason fro it to be private, we're all in this together.
April 9, 2023
64
-
That's along the lines I'm thinking of.
This is already 'clear and simple' legalese. Compare it with some other CoS. But there will be a guidelines document which includes dos and donts.
-
I think we probably all dislike Terms of Service but understand the need for them.
Do I understand correctly that hot linking to material on this site to which you do not own the copyright for is not permitted, but you can hot link to your own photos?On another site I am a member of, hot linking is permitted on condition that the resultant image is clickable i.e. when clicked on in the new site you are sent to the original host site. I think the premise is that someone may then look around the host site and possibly join it. Would that be a helpful condition here?
David
-
Under Permissions to use the site I'd add:
DPRevived.com ("the Site") is a Web site owned ....
and thereafter write Site with a capital S
-
I moderate a professional forum for doctors. One clause we have been occasionally grateful for is a clause that says we can suspend access for any reason without explanation. Your "Your permission to use the site and its facilities is subject to these conditions:" begs getting in to an argument about if the conditions have been complied with or not.
-
Good point. DPReview was bad in that respect due to poor discipline ... hopefully we are better!!
-
The real point of ToS is to separate our legal liability from the individual user's. So, if someone violates another person's copyright using the site, it's them that is responsible, not us. It's worthwhile keeping it in broad terms, otherwise you're inviting people to find loopholes. But, I'm trying to think of a formulation which makes it clear that it applies only to hot linking, and not making a link to the site as a whole.
The problem is, this goes along with the rights a site takes over users' copyright material. Keep the linking loose, you end up claiming more rights to what you can do with members' copyright material. -
I'll add that after the clause that says when we say stop, stop.
Edit: Added. -
Agreed, but this can better be done as a Feature request. IIRC is already noted
-
Especially since we have Misago's excellent quoting system which is a load more powerful that DPReview's.
-
"By registering a user name, logging-in or posting content on the site you give your acceptance of these terms."
How about adding something broader, such as using, visiting or accessing?
"You may not conduct trade in user names or other unique identifiers on the Site."
Is DPRevived / DPRevived.com a trademark or registered trademark? Should you explicitly mention the site name?
Do we need a privacy policy, GDPR policy or the like?
Disclaimer & Limits on liability: Can you say the site, its owners, operators, agents, etc. have no liability (why £50 Sterling)? Many sites have much more extensive disclaimers of warranty and limits of liability. Also, many are in all caps, either because it helps under some law or due to tradition.
Changes: Why "Should the changes be substantial the Foundation agrees to email you outlining the changes" - why not just say you'll post on the site? A simpler "we reserve the right to make changes at any time by posting such changes to the site" may be better.
Also a severability clause - if one part is not enforceable it won't affect the other parts of the ToS.
Jurisdiction and disputes: Just to confirm, you say courts and then you say arbitration. Aren't these two different things? Or is this standard UK wording? In the US there's often a waiver of jury trial.
-
Not part of the ToS, but shouldn't acceptance of the ToS be made an explicit condition in the User name Registration form?
-
Hahaha... Yes, that gave me a good laugh and I thank you for that!!!
S and Z are still my nightmares 'cause I worked both sides of the pond.My personal definition is simple as much difficult to explain in writing. Foreigners tend to speak a simpler Eng to each other. Everybody can catch it independent of the culture and mother tongue they're from: "International English"
The understanding level is not depending of what you've studied, Brit or Usa. If you do mistakes the others automatically amend. Not the same in presence of a Brit. For instance, I have a fond recall of a heated meeting with a Poland, a Hungarian, and two Spanish guys all with basic Ingliss knowledge; they found an agreement in less than 8 minutes after the Brit colleague left.§ If you are speaking Legal-ese that's ok. My bad.
I was thinking about Guidelines.Yes, I agree. Guidelines are the best place.
Sorry, I thought of it and put it down. -
Good point. Also, a link with a descriptive name at the bottom of each page.
-
Done
Trade mark work has still to be done.
Absolutely, high priority. Turns out we need to form the Foundation first.
I went through quite a few different forms of agreement. I think it needs to be simple, and so far as I could see this form, used on quite a few sites, covered what is needed without excess complication. The £50 limit seems to be around the norm. Capitalisation has no legal effect, degrades readability and makes the document more scary, which I didn't want.
Good point. Adopted.
Added.
Usual legal belt and braces. You will agree to arbitration but if you don't it will be in the English courts.
Thanks for a detailed set of comments, which has strengthened the document. -
Not at all. Any comment promotes more thought, which is a good thing.
And 'Z' is deprecated these days.
-
It will be. Further, current members will need to agree on their next log-in.
