|
Tim private msg quote post Address this user | |
| What are people's thoughts on the "Terms" hyperlink now embedded in the top of left of every model? With a link to buy camera included... | ||
| Post 1 • IP flag post | ||
|
GarySnyder private msg quote post Address this user | |
| This is B*** Sh***, thanks for pointing this out to me. We all need to jump on MP and demand that they remove this as I see no reason that this should be included in our work. I want to make it very clear that when I bought this camera I produce the content not Matterport and any terms and condition regarding what I publish are my responsibility. This is just another way that Matterport is promoting their services on our backs and eroding into our customer base. If MP wants to have user of the Pro agree to their T&C then send us an email where we agree to the T&C. It has no place on our constant. I await everyone comments on this blatant inclusion into our publish content. |
||
| Post 2 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
GarySnyder private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Copy of the email I just sent to Matterport; Scott and Paul Why have you decided to place your T&C on our Showcases without even discussing this with any of your Pro customers? Any reference to T&C is a matter between the producer of the content and Matterport not something you place on our customers content. If you need all users of your service to comply with your T&C’s which I see no problem with then this should be addressed to each user in the form of an email requesting that they agree and digital sign the agreement. Again I repeat that the T&C have no business on our customer end product which you have now done as of this morning. Please get back to me ASAP with your response. Best Regards Gary Snyder Director Gary.Snyder@ocuaris.com P +44 (0) 207 993 4616 C +44 (0) 778 996 2623 www.Ocuaris.com |
||
| Post 3 • IP flag post | ||
|
CharlieN private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Thanks for the post. I'm a real estate agent in St. Paul/Mpls MN and am waiting for a camera to arrive any day now so i can start scanning listings. Any virtual tours which are linked through our MLS are prohibited from containing hyperlinks so if Matterport insists on keeping the hyperlink on their viewer members of our MLS will be unable to use the tours. I've sent an email to Matterport informing them of the issue and asked if i should just cancel my order now. It would be a bummer if Matterport was unwilling to modify their viewer. Thanks again for brining this issue up. | ||
| Post 4 • IP flag post | ||
|
JohnBecker private msg quote post Address this user | |
| The terms and conditions are clearly intended for Matterport subscribers, not the general public. That link is completely inappropriate for inclusion in our models. I think we're all going to have to send email on this. When they see we're serious about it, hopefully they'll get rid of it. | ||
| Post 5 • IP flag post | ||
Missoula, MT |
rpetersn private msg quote post Address this user | |
I agree...this doesn't make sense to appear inside the public embedded content. I sortof wonder if this wasn't placed here as a subtle reminder to camera owners who've been bending the rules that were outlined in the terms agreement. In any case, it certainly doesn't belong here and needs to go away.  |
||
| Post 6 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
GarySnyder private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I'm not sure what you mean by bending the rules? | ||
| Post 7 • IP flag post | ||
|
Missoula, MT |
rpetersn private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I haven't seen anything specific...but the terms prohibit anyone from trying to reverse engineer the embedded models, and/or cover up their logo, etc. I just wondered if this little addition was a subtle reminder not to do that sort of "stuff". | ||
| Post 8 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
GarySnyder private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I think the point here is that the content produced by any one who invested in one of Matterport cameras belongs to the content provider not Matterport so it is us the producers of the content who should have the say on what is displayed on our content. I or no one else that I know of signed any agreement before we spent our hard earned money on the camera to be told what or how we can display our copyrighted content. If Nikon or Canon tried to tell me that I had to plaster their name on every photo I took then I would not buy there camera. The same should go for Matterport. |
||
| Post 9 • IP flag post | ||
|
Bryn private msg quote post Address this user | |
| WTF! B*******!!!!! | ||
| Post 10 • IP flag post | ||
|
Missoula, MT |
rpetersn private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I agree....wholeheartedly. This "Terms" link does not belong on the public embed. I was just thinking out loud about what might have prompted them to make this, in-desperate-need-of-reversing, addition. Gary, you bring up a good point about "ownership" and if you carefully read section 5 of the Terms, to me it gets a little fuzzy about what Matterport considers we actually "own". I haven't ever been wildly comfortable with this proprietary part of the whole Matterport package...but as far as I can tell we're left with little choice (at this point) if we want to use their service. Just my 2 cents...we're all on the same page here, I just think this conversation/discussion stems from something bigger as to why Matterport would suddenly decide it was necessary to post that link into all of the viewers. |
||
| Post 11 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Bryn private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I Called, Emailed, Cancel your orders if you are waiting on a Matterport. Fire all weapons. This is 100% unacceptable. Every model we have done and is in use in the MLS is now a compliance violation. I simply cant believe these idiots. I'm calling every ten minutes until I get a response. Simply Unbelievable!!!! I am so fired up right now!!! They are not going to get it unless we all let them have it on this. They are just going to keep going in this manner. This is insane!!! I highly recommend screaming. |
||
| Post 12 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
JohnBecker private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I've sent email and left a message at the customer support line. I hope everyone who is reading this thread will do the same. We all need to let them know that we will not stand for this. | ||
| Post 13 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Bryn private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Every model a commercial for Matterport with a link to buy right in it and $6,000 plus $15 per upload plus monthly subscription for the privilege of making these advertisements for Matterport. Unreal! |
||
| Post 14 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
GarySnyder private msg quote post Address this user | |
| As soon as I hear anything in regards to the email I sent off early this morning to Scott and Paul I'll post it on this forum. Matterport can't ignore the outrage they have caused and I would expect a response from them some time today. |
||
| Post 15 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Bryn private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Paul emailed me back and said he didn't know anything about this and he is getting more information.... | ||
| Post 16 • IP flag post | ||
|
TrueSpaces private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Just saw this. Not cool. I've asked a bunch of times if we can customize the type/layout, add more info about the property, etc. And of all those requests,.. they add a "Terms" link [shaking head] Excerpt from an older article that talks about selling cameras vs. being a services company. Right now, Matterport could make a ton of money selling its $4,500 camera. But what will happen to the business if and when mobile takes over, as Matterport predicts? "We view ourselves as a software and services company," said Brown. "We make money, yes -- right now we sell the camera, but we also make money off of the cloud services to do all that model processing. We believe that is what we would do long-term. We think as you go to mobile, you're going to get a huge volume of models that would come through our cloud services. That's really what the long-term business model is." Read more: http://www.benzinga.com/news/14/03/4425759/matterport-ceo-bill-brown-discusses-googles-project-tango-mobile-innovation-and-m#ixzz3KsAv9fUo |
||
| Post 17 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
GarySnyder private msg quote post Address this user | |
| It's almost 22:00 GMT / 14:00 PST and I've heard nothing from Scott or Paul. My email was in their in-basket the very first thing this morning as I set it at 10:12 GMT. Matterport has had more then enough time to respond. We all need to find out ASAP when MP plans on removing Terms from our content. Please keep up the pressure throughout the day. Thank you all |
||
| Post 18 • IP flag post | ||
|
Sourxstar private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I have also sent an email, asking for them to remove the T&C link. Hopefully the community backlash will be enough leverage to correct this issue. | ||
| Post 19 • IP flag post | ||
Orange, California |
craigsauer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I'm new to this forum (Hi!) and I think that "terms" link needs to go, too. But I'd also be interested in hearing some discussion about the issue of how much of the 3D Showcase for each scan we as the scanners really can claim to own. Certainly all the 360 photos/scans that we create with the Matterport camera are our creation, just as if we'd used a standard camera. But once we upload them to Matterport and they process them into the 3D Showcase, which is a proprietary process they they created and own, I think our ownership of the content gets muddy. They aren't just hosting our scans; they are processing them into something more valuable in a way that we couldn't without their help. Does anybody know if there's anything specific in the Terms and Conditions about ownership of the scans/3D Showcases? I guess I should click on that link and read through it in detail. I'll also email them asking to remove that link. Craig Sauer |
||
| Post 20 • IP flag post | ||
|
DoyleRealtor private msg quote post Address this user | |
| If they want to keep selling to photographers, brokers, and real estate agents they're going to have to remove that link. Our local MLS will fine about $500 per instance for tours with outside links on them. | ||
| Post 21 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Tim private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Received an email back saying that the "Terms" link is here to stay...but the "Buy a Camera" link will be deleted. I don't get it... | ||
| Post 22 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
DoyleRealtor private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Still violates MLS terms.. Consider 3D tours dead for residential real estate unless things change. I for one will be demanding a full refund for camera. | ||
| Post 23 • IP flag post | ||
|
Orange, California |
craigsauer private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I'm confused about the "buy a Camera" link you guys are talking about. That's only visible in the link to the my.matterport.com/models/**** links, not the direct links or embedded code, right? For example, the first link below shows that "buy a camera" link, but I can't imagine why we'd be sharing that with clients. The second link below is what I would send to clients, and it doesn't have the "buy a camera" link. https://my.matterport.com/webgl_player/#model=3mLFeYsxZP5 https://my.matterport.com/models/3mLFeYsxZP5 Do you guys put the link to the my.matterport.com/models/**** for individual models on the MLS instead of the link to just the 3D Showcase? And I'm interested to hear what the Matterport guys have to say about the MLS hyperlink rules for the terms part. Craig |
||
| Post 24 • IP flag post | ||
 WGAN ForumFounder & WGAN-TV Podcast Host Atlanta, Georgia |
DanSmigrod private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I LOVE the TERMS link: it's just the WRONG implementation. Instead of TERMS, the photographer should be in control of what the TEXT and what the link points to: including NO LINK as @CharlieN, @DoyleRealtor and others point out for MLS. For example, I would like to point to the client's website site to add an actionable, interactive link. Better yet, add the link(s) within the actual 3D Showcase. Imagine that you see an item that you would like to buy or learn more about and you can click on the LINK. I can not imagine that Matterport will continue to leave the TERMS link in. Whatever their thinking, I'm sure that it could be handled in a different way to accomplish their goal (including adding the link within the Workshop view - though not within the actual model.) There is a lot that Matterport is doing right and exciting. They obviously stubbed their toes (and ours) on this one. Happy holidays,  Dan P.S. Our voices are being heard. 205 people have looked at the Forum in the last 24 hours  |
||
| Post 25 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
DoyleRealtor private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I have no problems with the terms themselves, the issue is that MLS does not allow outside links within tours. Thus this is a clear violation and will result in fines for every single agent that uses Matterport 3D Tours on MLS I personally have sent an email back letting them know I expect a full refund, and will be sending my camera back. |
||
| Post 26 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
GarySnyder private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Email receiver 03:57 from Scott; Hi there Gary, Apologies for the delay on this response! For the terms link, we need to have that, but we're going to be removing the "Buy" button and simplifying the overall page. I don't yet have a timeframe, but it's being actively worked on as we speak. -Scott |
||
| Post 27 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Tim private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I got the exact same reply... | ||
| Post 28 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
GarySnyder private msg quote post Address this user | |
| I just sent this off to Scott and cc Paul at 10:15 GMT Hi Scott Thanks for getting back to me. I regard to the Terms of Use, this without a doubt applies to the individual who has generated the content and has nothing to do with those viewing the content. I can think of no cases where a viewer is subject to T&C’s, Facebook and Google Business View is prime examples of this. I can completely understand Matterport’s position on what is acceptable in regards to content being displayed in the Matterport Showcase. These Terms need to be accepted by the content provider via an email sent from Matterport to each individual who uploads content to Matterport. The Terms have no business being displays in or on the Producers final product pages i.e. Showcase. What you are saying is if a person coming to view content in a Showcase doesn’t review the terms of use then they are in violation of the terms. First this is a violation of certain European Laws as your would need to prevent the user from first viewing the content which you “have not and dare not” and secondly this content is the copyright property of the individual who has produced the content or in the case of Google Business View the business owner of the location shot I now request that Matterport remove the Term’s link for my content. Secondly I will be glad to sign an agreement in regards to the Terms of Content of what I upload to the Matterport Showcase. Best Regards Gary Snyder |
||
| Post 29 • IP flag post | ||
|
|
Tim private msg quote post Address this user | |
| Wow, I look forward to the response... | ||
| Post 30 • IP flag post | ||
This topic is archived. Start new topic?