Banned

[Rufus T. Firefly]

.

[bob turner]

This is the only part of their TOS I am not sure of. It is a contract of adhesion, but may nevertheless be applicable. I am not at all sure that this enables them to authorize others to use my copyrighted photos. I have the feeling that it is like the "no bailment" clause on the back of your parking receipt.

By uploading content created by you on this forum, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license therefore OGR can not be held liable for copyright infringement of that content.

[HONDO74]

This is the only part of their TOS I am not sure of. It is a contract of adhesion, but may nevertheless be applicable. I am not at all sure that this enables them to authorize others to use my copyrighted photos. I have the feeling that it is like the "no bailment" clause on the back of your parking receipt.

By uploading content created by you on this forum, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license therefore OGR can not be held liable for copyright infringement of that content.

Didn't Photobucket operate the same way...??

[Rufus T. Firefly]

.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

.

[bob turner]

And I am not sure they can do that. There seems to be a federal prohibition against sub-licensing of a non-exclusive license. One could get around that with an "express agreement" but I doubt the TOS constitutes such an express agreement.

And a non-exclusive license as described in the TOS is revocable at any time, and for any reason or no reason. I might just do that when they cut my ability to go back and look at my own posts.

In addition to its reliance on patent law in fashioning the default rule for copyright licenses in Harris,the Ninth Circuit recognized that prohibiting the assignment of nonexclusive copyright licenses is in accord with policies underlying the enactment of the Copyright Act. 2 Specifically, the court explained that:

That is from a scholarly examination - I can probably get a reference.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

.

[HONDO74]

Didn't Photobucket operate the same way...??

No. That was a persistant bit of mythology

Photobucket Terms of Use
https://photobucket.com/legal/terms-of-service

[Rufus T. Firefly]

.

[sarge]

This is the only part of their TOS I am not sure of. It is a contract of adhesion, but may nevertheless be applicable. I am not at all sure that this enables them to authorize others to use my copyrighted photos. I have the feeling that it is like the "no bailment" clause on the back of your parking receipt.

By uploading content created by you on this forum, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license therefore OGR can not be held liable for copyright infringement of that content.

Since there is no specified period you've assigned in this rights-to-distribute clause, you would be within your rights to notify them that by declining you the service by means other than mutual consent, they are now in abrogation of this agreement themselves and you are no longer bound by and have been released by them from these terms of service. Therefore they no longer have rights to distribute your intellectual property (as of whatever date they banned you or otherwise denied you service) and you require them to remove all photos, prose, and any other material in any form that is your intellectual property from their website, magazine, or any other form of dissemination they might own now or in the future, and furthermore must remove said material in x days, after which they assume the risks associated with infringement of copyright.

Unless things have drastically changed since I retired from this game, you as a contributor, author, photographer, can assign rights-to-distribute, but you never can lose ownership of your intellectual property.

That should set their 75 lawyers in a tizzy!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

.

[bob turner]

You are coorect - but I was never worried about OGR mis-using my photos, and indeed would have allowed them to keep my photos in my posts, even though terminating the non-exclusive license. I was nice about the whole thing, even when they went nasty on me. Here is a short excerpt - i won't share the rest of their missives, but happy to display what I thought were polite and coherent responses.

Oh...so now you are a copyright attorney! If so, then why did you post copyrighted pictures? Personal....really?! You are the one taking this personally and NOTHING I said below is anything other than the fact. AND if your pictures are copyrighted, then you should know that they have to be registered

I rather suspect they gleefully checked the USPTO to see if I was really registered (don't be too impressed - it is just a silly exam). What they found must have worried them because they apparently deleted all my posts.

[bob turner]

Oh - I take it back - they have only deleted recent posts.

I rather suspect that some one of those 75 attorneys has re-informed our moderator.

Rich Melvin seems to have it together - maybe some day he could supervise the project.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

.

[E7]

Fahgeddabout it! The obvious answer to this whole mess is to tell them to put their forum where the sun don't shine. They have told you you're persona non grata, go with the flow If you have a subscription, cancel it. No lawyers needed.