Sponsor |  CastorQuinn | Nov 19, 2007 6:43pm | 20: If you talked to SU beforehand, they would either give you permission, or direct you to use the Sponsored Sites facility, depending on what you were wanting to do.
It doesn't mean SU will automatically say yes just because you ask. It's just saying that SU may give permission to certain accounts to advertise certain sites in certain circumstances. And note that this would be permission to thumb your site, not permission to engage in PM and forum spam. I'm not aware of any accounts that have been given such permission, and while that doesn't mean there aren't any, I'd be surprised if the devs had given the okay to any accounts to use a facility other than Sponsored Sites, since all the tools you would need to track your site are located in that tool. As a further point, advertising a site through an SU account is incredibly ineffective compared to Sponsored Sites, so I can't see why any serious site promoter or advertiser would opt to do it that way. In short, the clause is there to cover special cases, not to legitimise spam.
19: Fair point Hapax, that could be worded much more clearly, for very little effort. Although it might be legally good enough as is, as a guide to let people know which actions are okay and which aren't, it is lacking and could be clearer. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | Morosoph | Nov 19, 2007 7:00pm | 15,16: Surely that doesn't apply to photoblogging someone's avatar?
I would hope that is means "abuse" of someone's facsimile, or I've some editing to do in my blog... Naturally if someone told me that they'd rather I not use their avatar, I would comply. |
|
|
Sponsor | | CastorQuinn | Nov 19, 2007 7:22pm | I think this is where 'permission' comes in.
Using a picture as your avatar constitutes implied permission for its use in relation to thumbing and commenting that page.
That permission could be revoked by the person in question, at which point you would have to take the picture down from your comment. That permission wouldn't extend to any other use of the picture - such as adopting it as your own avatar, as has happened in the past.
As with all terms of service, there's an element of common sense involved. The key here is that if someone makes use of a picture of you obtained either from your avatar, from your blog, from external sources, or which you have sent via PM to them, you have the right to ask them not to use that picture of you, and grounds to ask the devs to step in if the person insists on using your image in a way you are not comfortable with.
This is a pretty basic, standard protection. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | lerryn | Nov 20, 2007 12:17am | | i seem to remember back in the "old days" some stumblers had home handicrafts businesses that offered stumblers the chance to buy gifts, i guess that was before SU became such a commercial entity! (one april fools day we also all adopted geoffs avvie!) |
|
| 
Sponsor | | anitab | Nov 20, 2007 12:25am | things change, people change.
___
a slight nudge.. i refer to post 5. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | MJ-Brutus | May 3, 12:27pm | There are countries all over, including the USA, Austria and Norway where posting any photo of anyone (regardless of photographer) is illegal without expressed consent of the image subject(s). Regardless of any SU ties.
Even more worrying is the ToS bit about copyright issues. Just about 99% of photobloggers are in breach of those terms. Which makes that a much bigger legal quagmire than spammers.
The fact that SU implements policies against spammers and not copyright abuse would show a court that while SU has the means to crack down, they choose not to with copyright infringement.
That sort of selective policing opens up legal vulnerability.
Obviously a flag for copyright abuse would make things safer legally. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | imorgen | May 3, 6:15pm | 26 - If what you say is correct - that 99% of photobloggers are in breach of the terms - then surely a flag for copyright abuse facility would mean a huge amount of people potentially being flagged and a mammoth task for TBTB. (No disrespect, MJ-Brutus.)
It is so complicated, as discussed in this thread to which I know you participated:
stumbleupon.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/9961/ [stumbleupon.group.stumbleupon.com/forum/9961/]
Myself, I always try to credit the photographer, artist etc but that angry guy was saying that this is not enough if it's copyrighted and that SU itself is in breach of some law. I'm sorry, but I'm confused here. It's a shame people don't just give credit where it's due. Surely a lot of artists are glad of the publicity if a link or at least the source is provided. |
|
|
Sponsor | | MJ-Brutus | May 3, 6:33pm | It is complicated. And spam is obnoxious. I'm just pointing out that the ToS is being selectively enforced. And I understand why.
I only interject these thoughts into the discussion, because there are myriads of levels to consider here. Going after only some equally serious breaches of ToS as some left alone opens up vulnerabilities to SU legally. That's all. The SU powers that be may do whatever they want with this info. |
| |
|
You need to Sign-up for StumbleUpon to post to this forum
| |
Features → Discussion