Copyright again10042
Pages:
1
Paris |
RomainReparage private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I have passed on the Matterport Cloud Subscription Agreement to a qualified person to know his thoughts about it. My concern was about guaranty copyrights offering my services to serious company.His answer was ‘i never saw something like that. run away’. I know this has been debated many times here but i still don’t understand if we can guaranty any copyrights to our clients or not ? i do understand that we own the raw data but it seems that after MP traitement we loose it. How can we justify this to a client? MP wants to grow and open markets but they shoot themselves in the foot with this conditions. Not any serious company will accept a contract like this (where you give MP all rights to do whatever they want with the space of your clients) If i’m wrong (and hope to be) can you please explain ? |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
San Francisco |
Jwbuckl private msg quote post Address this user | |
@romainreparage Quote:Originally Posted by romainreparage Please explain more about what is causing issues with copyrights so I can better address. Like you, I am not an attorney but have spent a lot of time with the agreements and our Product Team. If I can't answer your questions here, I can forward them to the appropriate person in Matterport. In the Cloud Subscription Agreement, section 3. "Ownership and Licenses" it states "...You will own the copyrights in all Raw Sensor Data. Matterport will only have the rights to use the Raw Sensor Data as set forth in Section 3.7 of these Spaces Processing and Hosting Terms." The only rights Matterport maintains in section 3.7 really is the ability to actually run the service in the cloud. Without a grant of a license from the copyright holder (you) to Matterport, we would not be able to process the data. "3.7. Licenses to Matterport. You hereby grant to Matterport the following non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable licenses in connection with all Subscription Levels for the Processing and Hosting Service: (a) Raw Sensor Data: (i) to host, reproduce, modify and create derivative works from the Raw Sensor Data to generate the Space Imagery, Fixed Digital Objects and Non-Fixed Digital Objects; and (ii) to use Raw Sensor Data for internal purposes such as product development, testing and troubleshooting;" Any other rights to your models expect to run the service, including product development, testing and troubleshooting, must require your permission as you are the copyright owner. Note the wording in sections b,c,d - "subject to your direction". None of the rights given to Matterport gives it the ability to use/sell your model without your permission, only to process and host it. Does this help? |
||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
GarySnyder private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Plain and simple, my clients in the film industry stated after reading the T&C's to never use MP again on a shoot. I'm sure there are many others who have had the same response from their clients. | ||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
|
San Francisco |
Jwbuckl private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @GarySnyder +1 There are more than a few industries where the cloud architecture model is not optimal and the film industry is one of them. | ||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
|
Kumar private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Jwbuckl - "cloud architecture" is not the subject to be blamed here but MP's terms and conditions and compulsory branding. As a service provider, no one has any right to impose MP's terms on to their client. Possible solution to the situation - Client subscribes to MP directly or service provider look for alternative services like that of GeoCV - no doubt here again the data is still shared during the processing stage but there on the ownership is back with client alone. @romainreparage MP wants to grow by selling directly and not through MSPs. MSPs were/are just marketing media - but unlike traditional model where seller pays to market here MP gets paid for it by MSPs. so don't mistake it as loss to MP. It is matter of choice one needs to make. |
||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
|
San Francisco |
Jwbuckl private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Kumar My comment about cloud architecture is that in this model, to process and serve your media, Matterport (or GeoCV) have to be in possession of the media which I understand is why the TOS is written as it is. Matterport does not "own" your model. The Matterport Tech (or whatever arrangement has been made) remains the copyright holder. GeoCV has the same cloud model and thus maintains very similar wording regarding ownership and licensing in their TOS: "LICENSES FROM YOU You grant to GeoCV and its service providers the non-exclusive, worldwide right to use, copy, transmit and display any data, information, Content or other Materials, provided to GeoCV by you in the course of accessing and/or using the GeoCV Service..." "YOUR CONTENT B. ...By uploading any Content you hereby grant and will grant us and our affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicenseable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your Content in connection with the operation of the GeoCV Service (including in connection with enhancing the operation of the GeoCV Service) on your behalf, in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed..." How do you see GeoCV as different from Matterport in regards to its TOS? Where would you like to see change? |
||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Kumar private msg quote post Address this user | |
| As long as the hosting/publishing is taken care by either of services the terms might tend to be similar. My limited point is, GeoCV does offer more to address the situation quoted here - self hosting, except for processing it would not have further rights. As a service provider it now makes sense to impose own terms or transfer the ownership to clients. Of course it MP's choice as to what you want to offer and it is matter of choice to make. |
||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Kumar private msg quote post Address this user | |
In terms of use it looks like MP claims to own the content on their web - along with licensors. So the tour and tour related info is part of it? Correct me if I am misreading it. |
||
| Post 8 • IP flag post | ||
|
San Francisco |
Jwbuckl private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Kumar in this case, “Service” is the software and operations that make up Matterport versus the “Content” which a photographer would create utilizing the service. I believe this simply means to state Matterport retains 100% ownership in its intellectual property while you use it. | ||
| Post 9 • IP flag post | ||
 WGANStandard Member Los Angeles |
Home3D private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Jwbuckl - Your addressing questions is truly appreciated. I've been doing MP since 2016 and continue to serve clients with MP. For three years I've repeatedly lobbied Matterport (I presume others have, as well) to simply deliver the option, in Highlight Reels, to CHOOSE whether the pan goes left or right. I was delighted today to read that this is finally arriving. But really? 2-3 years just to get the ability to choose a pan direction? When will Matterport announce a "white label" branding option? And when the ability to download, process, retouch and reinstall panos to a tour? Oh, and when can we upload aerial panos of a property as additional 360's in a model presentation? It's great for clients to see the whole neighborhood! Oh, and when can we self-host? When are all of these coming? GeoCV has barely dried its wings and has already delivered ALL of these. 2-3 years for MP to offer the choice of a pan direction is not encouraging. Is Matterport incapable of what GeoCV offers, or has it made a conscious choice not to provide what professionals want? |
||
| Post 10 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Kumar private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Jwbuckl - As I have underlined the definition of Service - it covers everything that falls under MP domain. it is not explicitly mentioned that the tour content ownership belongs to either MSP or their clients. Why not mention one? A bold one? May be showing this to clients can ease life of MSPs? |
||
| Post 11 • IP flag post | ||
|
San Francisco |
Jwbuckl private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Home3D Thank you for your note and thank you for being a Matterport Partner. I will continue to do my best to answer any questions the forum may have until we find someone fulltime to cover social and community efforts at Matterport. We are searching! clickable text Quote: Originally Posted by Home3D I think Matterport is making a conscious choice to give customers what they want but on a timeline that reflects the maturity of the business serving a relatively large customer base, a number of supported and growing verticals, internationalization, and camera hardware. I am not sure at this moment when pan selection entered the development path, but it has not been 2-3 years on the shelf, but your point is taken that it seemed like a long time for a seemingly simple request. Suffice it to say that Matterport's development matrix is considerably more complex than if it were a startup again with one focus on residential real estate in a controlled rollout. Matterport is indeed actively considering/debating white labeling, full-res pano retouching, aerial/outdoor integration currently, but this is not to say that these will make it in the near term roadmap per se. There is a lot being delivered over the next six months in the pipeline. What we are promised by Product Management in the near term is a publishable roadmap to share with you soon so this process of talking futures is a lot less vague than it is now and I could give you better visibility to all feature development coming out of engineering. |
||
| Post 12 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Standard Member Los Angeles |
Home3D private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Jwbuckl - Thanks for the update. If MP is indeed "actively considering" as opposed to debating these additional features, I think thousands of MSPs may one day be happy. MP has a much larger development team, so should be able to innovate faster, not slower. I hope that white labeling, VERY simple to incorporate, is at the top. That there is complexity to swapping one bit of branding in favor to another, clearly is bunk. That MP has failed to offer this for years (would take a few lines of code) has spoken loud and clear to MSPs about MP's priorities, to serve themselves before their customers. Deliver this and self-hosting (which I see you left off the list) and all MSPs would view MP as a company reborn. |
||
| Post 13 • IP flag post | ||
|
Paris |
RomainReparage private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Jwbuckl Thanks a lot for you answers. I transmitted them to another qualified guy who was more in accordance with the terms. There is few points that i like to clarify here but it requires times and more than one advise so I will get back with them here really soon. Thanks for your participation. I really appreciate |
||
| Post 14 • IP flag post | ||
|
Changesin3d private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Jwbuckl The Terms of Service in my view is not clear. And then you factor in so many people talking about the "sales and value of "Data" what is and MSP supposed to think? Tell me Mr. Buckley you seem to state (correct me where I am wrong) you are saying the entire purpose Matterport takes licensee is so you may process our data. Except for product development. Again correct me if I am wrong, but did Matterport not use the "PARTNERS" data to be able to use 2D cameras to produce "Matterport Scans" with cameras that cost hundreds of dollars instead of thousands of dollars. How did this product development benefit the current "Partners" whose data you used? (Dying to hear the answer to that question) If you did use our data to make the cheaper cameras, Using Development as the logic to use our scans, is sharing data for commercial reasons part of Processing? Do you really think anyone who owned a camera that cost thousand of dollars would have approved you using their data to devalue their own camera? Is that not what happened? Please explain we are just trying to understand. Is the current TOS not the same TOS that was in place when Bill Brown tried to use our scans with Roomie? Here is a great question that is very short and direct? Are you selling our data to anyone or working with other companies allowing access to our Data without our permission? Great question for the CEO to answer in public, think of the positive reassurance to the PARTNERS. Will you also state in Public that you will not use our DATA for reasons that do not directly benefit us. I am still looking for the benefit of using MSP Data to make the system available to less expensive cameras. Why did Matterport just buy and AI company and what are you using our Data for now? In California there is a new law that goes into effect in January 2020 called the CCPA and at least as I read it, firms like Matterport will have to delete images of a Buyers Home. Seems finally the Buyer is going to have some Privacy Rights. Can you tell the MSPs in California that Delete will mean Delete and if not why not? How could this fraction of your data base be so valuable? Is not one of the principles of copyright that you can destroy your own work? Back to the over riding question if the reason for the license is to process, after processing why are you demanding a right to keep it? Do you plan to use that opening part of the TOS that says Matterport can change anything it wants to at anytime? Tell me where this senerio is wrong. A buyer buys a 3 million dollar home and it has security devices all over the house. Special locks, sensors and alarm pads all that were scanned. The buyer wants it deleted and you still have it. Do you figure that the real estate agent has a duty to tell the buyer about this, knowing that you hold the data for 10 years? Why is this data so valuable as not to fully delete it? You have said you only need it for the purposes of processing the file, right? Do you see it possible real estate agents in Ca. will feel at risk to major liability not to warn buyers given the CCPA and then because of the actions in California that it goes nationwide? Could the CCPA upset all MSPs value and if so what is Matterport going to do to help us. Make Delete really mean Delete? |
||
| Post 15 • IP flag post | ||
|
San Francisco |
Jwbuckl private msg quote post Address this user | |
@Changesin3d Quote:Originally Posted by Changesin3d Specifically, Matterport leverages its license to the data to use "for internal purposes such as product development, testing and troubleshooting" per the Agreement. Quote: Originally Posted by Changesin3d The development of Cortex AI enabled the addition of 360 cameras to the Matterport compatible camera lineup as it also provided new powers to the Matterport Pro line of cameras. The 360 cameras may at first be defined by their comparatively lower cost to the Pro2, but the features, image quality are nothing alike. The 360s really add new use case coverage for Matterport users and only at the margin would one be seen as a good substitute for a Pro line of camera. Think of this much like Nikon or Canon having high-end DSLRs and then having a point-and-shoot lineup. Quote: Originally Posted by Changesin3d No, no data is processed outside of Matterport. Sharing data is not part of our Agreement. Quote: Originally Posted by Changesin3d No. Quote: Originally Posted by Changesin3d Matterport did recently announce the purchase of Arraiy. The acquisition will help augment the product line. You will have to stand by to see what is released, but we promise it will be interesting! I am not an expert in CCPA but there are experts inside Matterport. I am not sure that CCPA requires that the scan data be deleted per se, but it really deals with the Personal Identifiable Information (PII) which may be held by companies like Matterport (eg GPS, address info etc). I am told we will have an updated Terms of Service which will be issued in the coming months which will address the requirements under CCPA much like Matterport adheres to similar privacy regulations today such as GDPR in Europe. Quote: Originally Posted by Changesin3d Specifically, Matterport leverages its license to the data to use "for internal purposes such as product development, testing and troubleshooting" per the Agreement. With Machine Learning (Cortex) generally, the more data you can throw at the algorithms, the better. As data amasses, things like accuracy and predictive qualities get honed. Generally speaking, I think your concerns about scanning security panels may be overblown provided that you adhere to a solid site prep checklist. Such a checklist would have you first checking that no one has personal information (like passwords!) hung on the wall before scanning. This would be the very same precaution one should take before doing a walkthrough or hosting an open house. Quote: Originally Posted by Changesin3d I am not seeing the risk that you are seeing. I believe Matterport is the party with the duty to comply with CCPA, in whatever form that takes, not real estate agents. Does any liability even sit with agents with regard to Matterport tours other than to mark them private when directed I suppose? I have already stated that this will be solved with a simple TOS update in the near future which reflects the compliant operating procedure well in time for the required CCPA cut over. I will provide updates on this topic as I get them. |
||
| Post 16 • IP flag post | ||
|
Paris |
RomainReparage private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Jwbuckl : why can't we have a job(space/copy of space)deleted from MP if we (our clients)request for it ? as the TOS made us responsible for the spaces we upload it should be a reasonable justified request ? | ||
| Post 17 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Changesin3d private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @ Jwbuckl Thank you for the responses to the questions. The CCPA is a big deal and all images for a "buyers" new home is going to be in play in almost all locations where it is posted. Trulia, Zillow and Matterport, even the MLS. You may want to read the law as I see direct liability to anyone that posts a picture of the buyers home and has the "COPYRIGHT", that is our copyright correct? If the BUYER says take it down (as in totally destroy the data) they have that right? Your view that our data used in CORTEX in someway gave you the RIGHT to adopt it 2 D cameras and devalue ours is just plain crazy (in my humble opinion). RJ seemed to point to the high quality of the images when it was introduced noting the affordability, and your statement that it's lower quality in some way makes it so? Clearly Matterport approach with quality depends on who you are taking to, is that correct? If 2D Cameras were not commercially viable, and poor quality why do it? From a marketing standpoint how do you suggest that MSPS should addresses this? Yust go out and tell Realtors and others that even Matterport says they are low quality and not use them? Say Matterport gets sold and our you discontinue the support for the cameras, where does that data go? |
||
| Post 18 • IP flag post | ||
|
San Francisco |
Jwbuckl private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Changesin3d Please do not misread what I am writing to you. Nowhere do I write that the 360 cameras are either "low quality" or "not commercially viable". I wrote, "The 360 cameras may at first be defined by their comparatively lower cost to the Pro2, but the features, image quality are nothing alike." Quite simply, the 134-megapixel Pro2 camera will outshoot the 14, 18 and 23-megapixel 360 cameras all day long in image quality. BUT I also go on to write that they open up DIFFERENT use cases than the Pro2 given their unique attributes. We often post side by side imagery for consumers to judge and decide for themselves what the best solution(s) are for their needs. The point is that with Matterport, we are going to continue to drive innovation so as to provide consumer choice. I would expect to see other options in the near future as well. |
||
| Post 19 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1This topic is archived. Start new topic?