51–60 of 101 posts
If you can write down your terms of service in a simple and clear manner, why include the obfuscated version?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, I imagine this will not go over well with 500px users. You would think 500px would respect the IP savvy of artists and avoid (perhaps) patronizing them.
I don’t think it’s patronising at all. The site is acknowledging not only that their customers’ time is valuable, but also that most people won’t bother to read two sentences of plain English—let alone a couple dozen paragraphs of legalese. It may put 500px on slightly shakier legal ground, but as far as the users are concerned, it’s humanising and friendly.
And I point also and especially to wording like this, which leaves me outright cold to them as a product "The registration information you provide must be accurate, complete, and current at all times. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Terms, which may result in immediate termination of your 500px account."
This is a website, that I put photos on, not an application for something serious.
This is a nice approach and I think a lot of companies will follow suit. I wonder, are there any good links or resources on generating the Terms Of Service or Privacy Policies in the first place? Or is a lawyer always required?
As much as I think Terms of Service documents are broken, I don't like these supposed simplifications, because invariably they simplify too much. For example, in the real ToS, there's this clause: The license granted to 500px includes the right to use your Content fully or partially for promotional reasons and to distribute and redistribute your Content to other parties, web-sites, applications, and other entities (.…
I've been through the process of litigating a contract in court. Not fun, but definitely was an exquisite education in the school of hard knocks. Lawyers throw all kinds of language into a contract, that doesn't mean the intent was there. Vague, unfair, or overly broad language that was not clearly understood by both parties tends to get reduced, removed, or modified in accordance with what both parties reasonably un…
That's quite clear to me. If I were to try my luck in the courts, I'd be pleasantly surprised if the Judge took the "basically" column as the legal interpretation. Ignorance, as far as I'm aware, is not an acceptable legal defence (as cited by many a judge to people who neglect to pay their taxes).
The fact remains however, few people read TOS pages or privacy polices. Any attempt to change that should be applauded in my view.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, I imagine this will not go over well with 500px users. You would think 500px would respect the IP savvy of artists and avoid (perhaps) patronizing them.
The intent of that clause would have been to allow them to a) actually show the images on the 500px site, b) highlight them in "popular images" on the site, c) surface them in API results.
Your photos will preserve whatever copyright they had before
uploading to this site. We will protect the copyright and
will not sell your photos without your permission.There is no rule that a TOS has to be convoluted.
Well done to whoever spotted this. I signed up to this site, and now I will delete my account. The simplifications are not accurately simplifying what they should be. Which I think is silly, since the majority of us can read and think, and see that in some cases the simplifications barely match whats actually being said. And I point also and especially to wording like this, which leaves me outright cold to them as a…
There has been a few cases like that, and photographers love that we take proactive approach in solving their problems.