Stupid Terms Link1148
Pages:
1
Orange, California |
craigsauer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| From searching the Forum history, it looks like it's been about a year since anyone posted about the stupid "Terms" link on our tours. So I'm just starting a new thread about it for us to gripe in. I'll also add it to the Wishlist for improvements to the 3D Showcases. To get the griping started: Matterport junks up the visual space of every 3D Showcase with this stupid link to a popup of a bunch of stupid legalese that no viewer of a 3D Showcase will ever read. Matterport does this for reasons they won't explain to us. Other, bigger, more prominent companies that provide similar content over the internet do not feel the need to do this. YouTube does not put a "Terms" link on every YouTube video telling viewers what the terms for viewing videos on YouTube are. If you bother to read the stupid legalese in the stupid Terms link, you'll see that almost every single piece of it relates to the Terms of use for UPLOADING and CREATING 3D Showcases, not the Terms of Use for viewing 3D Showcases. So why don't they just require those of us who create 3D Showcases to agree to these terms for each data set we upload? They won't tell us. Many of us have emailed them complaining about the stupidity of the stupid Terms link and gotten no response. (Has anyone gotten a response on this issue? I haven't...) And let's just say that one of us stupidly creates a horrible horrible 3D Showcase that stupidly violates every bit of common sense and decency, displaying clearly copyrighted material in a manner that is not "fair use", or contains sexually explicit and obscene material and posts links to it all over the place for children to see. What's going to happen when someone sees it and freaks out? Are their lawyers going to see that stupid Terms link and not sue Matterport because they put up a stupid Terms link that no one is even required to click "accept" on before viewing? In what scenario could that stupid Terms link ever provide any legal protection for Matterport? Craig |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
|
GarySnyder private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Craig sadly your beating a dead horses on this one. This has been discussed many times in the past and MP will tell you if your don't like the terms which they dictate then move to another solution. One other point you failed to mention is that MP owns each and everyone showcase and grant us the privilege of having access to to content which we created and the client paid for but has no rights of ownership other then the OBJ. |
||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
Orange, California |
craigsauer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I agree, Gary. Griping about this is unlikely to change anything. But, hey, you never know. Maybe there is somebody new at Matterport in a position of power who can see this for the stupidity it is or maybe the person whose stupid idea it was in the first place has moved on to another company and now Matterport can feel free to get rid of that person's stupid idea. Besides, I like griping about stupid things.  |
||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
|
Shane private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @craigsauer Here Here, but never thought to ask about it. @GarySnyder Thanks, it does sort of explain it. I've been dreading the day an agent asks what is about and to have it removed. Just adds to the complexity of things with on apparent purpose as you @craigsauer put forward. Anyway I like your thinking @craigsauer ... Go for the jugular.  |
||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
 WGAN ForumFounder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Shane @craigsauer @GarySnyder A Matterport senior marketing executive -- that joined Matterport after the "Terms" link was added to models -- emailed me: --- "Regarding the terms link: this benefits the photographers as much as anyone, since they are typically the copyright owners of the models (unless they have given copyrights to the customer, in which case the terms protects the customers rights)." "It also prevents some nefarious person from misrepresenting themselves as one of the other users of the system. There are other terms that grant rights to photos to distribute their content by sharing links to the models, and allowing others to do the same. Many other benefits in there, not listed here." "So while I appreciate Craig’s mis-trust of lawyers (I have this in common with him), the terms do serve him well. They need to be in the model interface so that we can guarantee they are always visible." --- Dan |
||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
|
Orange, California |
craigsauer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @GarySnyder Another important distinguishing point between the ownership of the 3D Showcase and the stupid Terms link is that we all bought the camera and signed up for Matterport when the ownership terms were in place. The stupid terms link showed up after I (and many others) had committed to the technology, when it was too late to opt out of something that obviously isn't a deal breaker, no matter how stupid we think it is. (If it was a deal breaker, we wouldn't be complaining about it, we'd be ex-Matterporters.) | ||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
|
Orange, California |
craigsauer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @DanSmigrod Thanks for forwarding this response! I'd previously gotten no response at all from my complaints about this issue. However, I think it's a pretty weak response. How does having that stupid terms link protect my copyright any better than creators of YouTube videos copyrights are protected by YouTube without a similar Terms link? Exactly what sort of scenarios are we being protected from by the Terms link? "Nefarious persons misrepresenting themselves as one of the other users of the system" What does that mean? I just read through it again. Here's an example: The terms gives people permission to "Link to any page on the Matterport website." Thanks, Matterport! Good thing that's in there. Again, how does YouTube manage to not get sued into oblivion by failing to put a similar Terms link on their videos? Why don't they have to tell people that they are free to provide links to YouTube videos and embed them in their web pages. |
||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @craigsauer YouTube and Vimeo ar great 'models' of how this should work. Dan |
||
| Post 8 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1This topic is archived. Start new topic?