BREAKING NEWS: Inman reacts to TOS change.6445
Pages:
1
Frisco, Texas |
Metroplex360 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Matterport releases new terms of service, retains right to share 3-D home tours Many view the move as an infringement on both creators' and property owners' rights BY VERONIKA BONDARENKO - TODAY 9:28 A.M. Under the new terms of service for imaging company Matterport, the company can share and profit off of the 3-D photos you captured with its cameras at any time, without telling you if and when it does. On Feb. 21, Matterport sent out an email newsletter notifying users that it had changed the terms of service for its cameras. The specialized cameras, which sell at a starting point of $2,500, are regularly used by real estate agents to create immersive 3-D property tours. The former terms of service left those who used the camera with the exclusive copyright of the tours they filmed. Under the updated version, Matterport now retains “non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable licenses” to all past and present works created on its devices. Bill Brown, Matterport CEO, told Inman that the changes were done to create a public "ecosystem" of 3-D property tours that everyone could access -- including the company, real estate agent... https://www.inman.com/2018/02/23/matterport-releases-new-terms-of-service-retains-right-to-share-3-d-home-tours/ |
||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
|
Matt19 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| George was mentioned in the article! | ||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
OpenHouseOptics private msg quote post Address this user | |
| My question is how do they retroactively apply the TOS? Without consent? | ||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
 Nodal NinjaFounder |
Bill private msg quote post Address this user | |
| To pull this off wouldn't they need revoke old TOS and have MSP's agree to new? Didn't know you could make changes to TOS retroactive. https://support.matterport.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003530027-Changes-to-Terms-of-Service-FAQ |
||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
|
MeshImages private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I hope that Matterport survives this ecosystem TOS disaster. I have the impression that the majority of current and potential future users do not want to be part of this ecosystem. |
||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
OpenHouseOptics private msg quote post Address this user | |
| So does this also mean that Matterport can start advertising a “library” of tours and photos that agents can “relicense” directly from Matterport instead of the original MSP? Is this class-actionable? | ||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
|
LetMe3D private msg quote post Address this user | |
| So glad I returned my camera when I could but it took over three months to get the charge off my credit card. A unethical company is a understatement. Good luck to all of you stuck with your soon to be expensive paper weight. The ship will go down if wrong isn’t righted. Is the management so stupid? If everyone stops shooting they have no product and are left with a limited library. |
||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
|
Gerhard private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by LetMe3D@LetMe3D thats what I also suggested. Power in numbers. |
||
| Post 8 • IP flag post | ||
 WGAN BasicMember New Brighton, PA |
frstbubble private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Fact Check: Inman article "Brown told Inman this would make Matterport 3D tours useful not only to home sellers, but also to buyers and future residents who may wish to access the tour captured on behalf of a previous owner. He also conceded Matterport can also profit off of the tours, though the company plans to “share,” rather than sell, the tours “on behalf of property owners and residents.”" A Letter from Matterport CEO "To be clear, as a result of the ecosystem license, Matterport will look to generate revenue from goods and service providers by using the 3D Spaces and our SDK to enable them to engage with property owners and residents through the Matterport Platform. These future revenue streams will fund new technology development like our SDK and a multitude of features, and will allow us to continue to deliver advanced 3D media solutions that make it inexpensive and easy to capture and utilize immersive 3D media." One other fact check from the Inman article: "“Matterport continues to make this system available and add features to it and improve it to their benefit,” said Brown in an interview with Inman, adding that unlike in artistic photography, Matterport’s cameras rely on highly automated technology that captures every detail of a property. “In return, these terms of service changes are [giving Matterport] a very limited license for this specific use.”" Wait he only stated to process the data captured by the camera, not the fact that they are privately licensing our spaces to the homeowner to use in third-party applications. Ok so you buy a Nikon camera then you pay a yearly subscription to Adobe to use their editing software. From what Mr. Bill Brown told Inman that Nikon and Adobe should have rights to our produced content because Nikon rely's on highly automated technology to capture the data as framed in the viewfinder, and Adobe should have rights because it used highly automated technology to enable us to edit that photo! |
||
| Post 9 • IP flag post | ||
|
Frisco, Texas |
Metroplex360 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I think that all of these objectives that Matterport want to achieve could have been done without the TOS changes. I think everyone is scared out of their minds despite and the reality will be that few people re-use the spaces and that more people order new scans. It just makes sense. If I wanted to remodel my home, I wouldn't want a scan from when we purchased it (maybe as a reference only) --- I'd want a NEW scan done. I think the TOS changes were unnecessary while welcoming what Matterport is wanting to do in the future. |
||
| Post 10 • IP flag post | ||
|
DaK private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Metroplex360 I get what you are saying. I think the freak out is that they are doing it automatically , , retroactively and it's not opt-in, it's opt-out. Privacy sensitivity is the issue for me. I DO NOT want to have to go back to all the people I've scanned for and tell them Matterport may be contacting them sometime in the future because they want to show a 3D model of their private home to third parties. What headaches will this cause me down the road? Maybe none. Maybe a lot. That's what I'm freaking out about. And if they can do this TOS change now, what can and will they do in the future? The trust if VERY weak at the moment. |
||
| Post 11 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Gerhard private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I don't believe we are in their best interest, if we are then change the TOS back and give us ownership, you have nothing to lose Matterport or do you? | ||
| Post 12 • IP flag post | ||
|
Frisco, Texas |
Metroplex360 private msg quote post Address this user | |
Quote:Originally Posted by DaK I agree with you 100%. It's intrusive and no one likes feeling intruded upon or burdened by a responsibility that they did not sign up for. Quote: Originally Posted by DaK Totally get it! Uncertainty is horrible Quote: Originally Posted by DaK Can't blame you. They will be trying to rebuild trust by explaining this a bit more in these town halls, but I very respectfully believe that Matterport could have achieved every single thing that they are wanting to achieve without changing the TOS. |
||
| Post 13 • IP flag post | ||
|
eggardner private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Metroplex360 - I didn't know you were a moderator on the Official FB group for Matterport, Chris! Hopefully that means you have the ears on some decision makers and they listen to your ideas on how to make this Eco service potentially work so there is a win-win for everybody. However, without getting MSP's to opt their scans in (and therefore taking responsibility of informing realtors and homeowners their properties have been opted in) I just can't see how this will work and we'll start to get more and more push back from our realtor clients as the new TOS become more public. | ||
| Post 14 • IP flag post | ||
|
Frisco, Texas |
Metroplex360 private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @eggardner I, like several other MSPs, are doing our best to advocate for everyone else. We did not unilaterally approve of the changes, but all submitted ideas and suggestions that were taken into consideration, discussed, and were included. I'm on team opt-in and team 'scans don't count towards our total if opt-ed in'. Matterport seem to have struck a compromise, although it wasn't one I was expecting. |
||
| Post 15 • IP flag post | ||
|
jasondavidpage private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I love the concept of the "Ecosystem" utilizing the SDK, but why would anyone want to use an old scan to plan out their decorating or whatever other 3rd party options may become available? Why not market the ecosystem to homeowners and refer them to MSPs to handle creating new, accurate scans of their property? I don't buy into the "new property owners will see the private scan and want to contact the original provider for a new scan" mantra that is being advised to all of the damage control reps. I'm still against the overreaching rights grab and the false "copyright" grant that Matterport provides to us. From what I gather, I only own the raw, unprocessed data that I can do nothing with. From everything I've read in all of the different Terms, I'm under the impression that the snapshots and panoramics that we download aren't even ours to Copyright. The TOS change signifies something deeper and undisclosed while the "Ecosystem" is taking the brunt of the attention. |
||
| Post 16 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Basic Member New Brighton, PA |
frstbubble private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @jasondavidpage "Who owns the copyright for a Matterport Space? Copyright ownership is not changing. Copyright for any Matterport Space is automatically assigned to the account holder that the Space is uploaded into. Matterport does not hold the copyright to 3D content created by its customers, but it does retain a license to use the data in limited ways, such as for processing and hosting, and for use by approved third-party partners." from FAQ: Matterport Ecosystem Hope this helps. I try and get the information from the source and not just make something up. |
||
| Post 17 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Basic Member New Brighton, PA |
frstbubble private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Metroplex360 I appreciate your work on our behalf. Our voice has been heard. I think you have just given me a new thread idea. | ||
| Post 18 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
jasondavidpage private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @frstbubble I have read that line many times. However that explanaton is only half true when you take into account all of the other ways that Matterport holds license to our data and images. Cloud Subscription Agreement Section 3.4 states that we can't modify or create derivative works (doesn't sound like I hold the copyright then) Spaces Processing & Hosting Terms Section 3.1 says I have the copyright to the raw sensor data, but "Matterport will own all digital copies of Raw Sensor Data, and You shall only use the Raw Sensor Data to upload it to Matterport via the Capture App. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, You may not access the Raw Sensor Data on, or extract the Raw Sensor Data from, any Matterport Camera or the Capture App in any manner." It's a way to appease those who don't read the entire agreement because they see that "copyright" remains with them, but at the same time we don't have any control over it once we have uploaded it via the capture app. |
||
| Post 19 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Basic Member New Brighton, PA |
frstbubble private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @jasondavidpage Over the last couple days I have been doing a lot of digging around the old and new and now rolled back TOS and I understand what you are saying and quoting. A lot of it was something we really didn't know we agreed to till after we agreed to it. But we were stuck with it. As for the rolled back TOS there were things in there way beyond what you point out. A lot of the earlier TOS had to do with what Matterport believes is required to process our spaces and allow us to post them through their viewer to places we wanted them viewed. |
||
| Post 20 • IP flag post | ||
|
Shakoure private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @frstbubble ...If that's the case, what if I - as copyright owner - want to dispose, destroy, or delete, a scan? Their FAQ sounds like a play on words designed to give Matterport control over created content. Who cares about "ownership" if you don't have control?! I think this might eventually end up before a judge presiding over this as a copyright suit. | ||
| Post 21 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Basic Member New Brighton, PA |
frstbubble private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Shakoure I agree that a deleted/not deleted tour is still an issue. | ||
| Post 22 • IP flag post | ||
 WGAN ForumFounder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hi All, Anyone can join the WGAN-TV Mattreport Ecosystem Town Hall on WGAN-TV Live at 5 (5 pm EST | GMT -5) today, Tuesday, 27 February using this link while the show is live. (In addition to the live broadcast, we are recording the show, so please do not join the show, if you do not want to be recorded.) WGAN-TV Ecosystem Town Hall Format 1. A brief intro by me. Then ... 2. Question #1: What was your reaction when you heard the news that Matterport was changing the TOS? 3. Question #2: What was your reaction when you heard the news that Matterport was rolling back the TOS? 4. Question #3: What do you feel that Matterport should do moving forward? 4. Question #4: What is on your Matterport "Wish List"? 5. Question #5: "Wish List" of how Matterport could turn ragging fans back into raving fans? -- ✓ Discussion is encouraged ✓ Everyone will get an opportunity to speak ✓ The first time you speak, please let us know your name, company name - or WGAN Forum Member name - and location If Matterport CEO Bill Brown joins the discussion, we invite him to go first and encourage Bill to answer questions. Other topics we should cover during this Matterport Ecosystem Town Hall on WGAN-TV? What to encourage others to watch? Give them the link: www.WGAN-TV.com Best, Dan P.S. All WGAN Forum discussions tagged: Matterport Ecosystem --- If you would like to test your connection, we will be live for testing from 4-5 pm EST | GMT -5) today, Tuesday, 27 February 2018. |
||
| Post 23 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Hi All, Seems timely (again) in light of this WGAN Forum discussion today (28 March 2020): ✓ Matterport recruiting Pro Service Providers to compete against indepen... Dan |
||
| Post 24 • IP flag post | ||
 WGANStandard Member Los Angeles |
Home3D private msg quote post Address this user | |
| What an unfortunate time for Judge Judy to retire. I’d love to see her take this one on! When you take the basics of photographic copyright law in the U.S. and the MP TOS requirement to grant MP forever license to our work just for pressing the button, I smell a class action lawsuit leading to a rollback of the Terms. Would be nice if that included damages as a slap on the wrist, but if those funds are needed to cover the attorney, count me in. This is just as unethical as companies that require internal binding arbitration and non-disclosure agreements as a condition of hiring. No, actually it’s more unethical because it applies to users of cameras which were purchased before the TOS was written. It might have stronger legs if only applied to new purchases. |
||
| Post 25 • IP flag post | ||
|
WGAN Forum Founder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| @Home3D Reminder that the original post in this discussion is from two years ago. Matterport rolled back its TOS, based on the WGAN Forum Community backlash. Dan |
||
| Post 26 • IP flag post | ||
Pages:
1This topic is archived. Start new topic?