Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 10:54am PT
|
In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), consent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places.[2] Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. This is so whether the image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual. "
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people
|
|
RJ Spurrier
SuperTopo staff member
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 11:03am PT
|
Ken M:
Thanks for chiming in on Fair Use. The problem with Fair Use, which as you know is part of the law and also a common defense against infringement claims, is that it is not clear cut, and thus interpretation of whether it applies may be subject to debate. That kind of debate can result in litigation, to determine in a court of law whether Fair Use applies on a case-by-case basis, which can mean a significant expense in time and money for a small organization like SuperTopo. We'd much prefer to avoid that kind of potential litigation cost, and simply don't see why the mission of the SuperTopo Forum, to provide "a resource for climbers of all skill levels and experience to get information about climbing and climbing destinations" demands that the site incur that kind of litigation risk.
I should make it clear that Chris is not asking for your legal advice, or for a debate on what the site's terms of service should be.
You are welcome to start your own website and set whatever policy you want to on your own site. But, if you post here, then please follow our Terms of Service and guidelines as they exist here. If you don't like them, that is OK, just don't post here.
It seems clear that Chris has outlined a more conservative position than you might choose for your own site. The policy here is based on the idea that people post only content they own or have rights to, and which does not "infringe any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual or proprietary right of any party."
What Chris has asked of people on this site is perfectly reasonable, even if the rules are different on other sites. If you post here, you need to confirm you agree to and will follow, the terms of service in place here.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 11:16am PT
|
RJ: I have posted a lot of articles from old climbing magazines, articles which are from 75 to 5 years old. I have taken photos page for page and then posted them on different threads to fill out history, as examples articles covering Bonatti, Buhl, Destivelle, Edlinger and Hill. Should they be deleted?
|
|
RJ Spurrier
SuperTopo staff member
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 11:31am PT
|
Marlow:
I have posted a lot of articles from old climbing magazines, articles which are from 75 to 5 years old. I have taken photos page for page... Should they be deleted?
I'm sorry, but the answer is unfortunately yes.
Scans of magazines, guidebooks, or books are specifically one of the types of common copyright infringing images Chris flagged in his post yesterday.
Chris said:
- Scans of Copyrighted Magazines, Books, or Articles - we can't have any scans of climbing articles, guidebook pages, or any other scans of copyrighted printed material on our server. I know this kind of content has been interesting and may have real historical or educational value, but it is nonetheless copyright infringing and needs to be removed
I would love to suggest you relocate that kind of historical content to Wikipedia, but frankly I don't think it meets their criteria for posting images either (and they do allow a very narrowly defined subset of Fair Use that we do not, but I don't think what you describe meets even their requirements).
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 11:38am PT
|
Suggestion for everyone - do a show all, then PDF it, then put the PDF on a file share and link to it in the first post.
I have acrobat pro on my machine, so I'm not certain, but it appears Chrome also has a save-as PDF built in - and I just checked, it does.
EDIT - using a combination of the javascript hack presented a few days ago to display linked images - and Chrome Save As PDF - I created a PDF of the Classic Ice Primer thread - 633 Supertopo pages - converted to 278 PDF pages - all in about 1 minute. It looks perfect. Just a few deleted photos that there's nothing one can do about.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 11:56am PT
|
RJ, presumably, you want to be considered reasonable.
I accept that you are not interested in my "legal advice", such as it is.
I guess that it does not seem reasonable to me, that a policy is put into action that is not supported by law, and that you are unable to make the very simple statement "our intellectual property attorney has advised us to take this course of action". Attorneys working outside their area of expertise tend to be highly conservative, and tell you to do every thing possible to reduce your risk. You will find them telling you not to publish guide books, and not to do anything that encourages anyone to climb, and to not climb yourselves. Feel free to follow their advice.
People can *threaten* lawsuits all day. It doesn't mean they follow through, because knowledgeable attorneys know that they tend to lose money if they follow through on a "loser" case.
You guys are coming across as tools of someone manipulating you to damage your user base. Who benefits from that?
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 11:59am PT
|
You guys are coming across as tools of someone manipulating you to damage your user base. Yes - and they will be discovered and questioned about it in person - eventually - it's inevitable.
For now it just plays out, we're obviously not in control.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 12:00pm PT
|
I have acrobat pro on my machine, so I'm not certain, but it appears Chrome also has a save-as PDF built in.
It does. I've been saving entire threads in PDF for a while using Chrome.
Start with the menu in the top right corner of the browser with three vertical dots, i.e. "Customize and control Google Chrome".
Then, in the drop-down: click print> destination> save as PDF>save
(You have to select save as PDF in the drop-down off of destination)
Sometimes I save threads as a complete webpage, also off of Chrome. I do this when I want active links to be saved. The problem is, if the browser stops being supported, that archive probably won't work any longer. PDF is more static. Whereas the full webpage archive format is active.
Start in the same drop-down, then: more tools> save page as> webpage complete>save
 I have encountered a problem saving pages to PDF: sometimes depending on whether or not there is a scrollbar because someone has blown out the sidewall of the page with a large picture, than the PDF won't capture all of the text on the Supertopo thread.
At least I think that is the culprit of that error. So you have to check your work!
.....................................
Question, RJ: do those screenshots violate your rules?
Not even kidding here. Just want to be in compliance.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 12:12pm PT
|
Just testing
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 12:13pm PT
|
Question, RJ: do those screenshots violate your rules? I would say at this particular moment, you don't ask and he doesn't answer. Maybe when things cool these PDF's get placed somewhere everyone can access them. Meanwhile, as long as it's not child porn, what gets stored on your computer is nobody's business.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 12:16pm PT
|
Sorry, JLP:
I meant the actual screenshots of my process as posted in those uploaded "photos" in my tutorial.
To your other point: hell yes, baby, as long as it resides on my computer, that sh#t is all mine! Just like all the porn and malware that I download!
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 12:45pm PT
|
It appears to me that the definition of ownership has drifted lately.
Will say why later.
I gotta go meet Tonto.
Too far from shore? Ask Hank.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QvGjdu7_8E
Whatever you do, avoid that lost highway, eh?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCgicPdsxxg
say there hey tB
Thanks for the Chrome tip. I did not know that.
I now only have to solve the multi-page display I want to get that does not have the "show all" option.
Have experimented a little with one product.
Will let ya know.
|
|
A Essex
climber
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 12:58pm PT
|
isn't it 4/20 somewhere?
way too serious in here
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 01:00pm PT
|
I'm looking to cut through the technical debate here and arrive at a practical solution that will actually work long term to keep SuperTopo what it has been for us.
Clearly, the present owner(s) and staff don't feel that the bang-for-buck exists at present, which leads to significant risk-aversion. Whether that is technically justified or not is beside the point! So, to my mind, making the bang-for-buck a viable proposition is the point.
The biggest issue, I believe, concerns money. The present resources (processing, bandwidth, storage, security, etc.) are not adequate to handle everything that SuperTopo has become. This is actually a very common problem; sites become more popular than their founders planned for, and there was no solidly-informed scaling plan or monetization path in place.
Fortunately, it's not that expensive to upgrade the infrastructure, and it's easier to monetize a successful site than to make a site successful in the first place. And let me be explicit about this next point!
ANY site that proposes to be a "historical site" that does not have a CLEAR scaling and monetization plan in place is NOT a long-term archive! And people that care at all about the archive being viable long-term should have confidence in that scaling and monetization plan! Otherwise, the "historical record" you think you are contributing to in some particular venue is likely to not last even as long as SuperTopo has.
It is my belief that SuperTopo already is the perfect venue to become that viable "historical archive" and that monetization is both possible and will provide the resources necessary to produce a genuine archive.
A subscription model with tiers would be very helpful on a number of fronts. There are countless possible approaches. Here's just an initial suggestion.
* Lurking is free, obviously.
* Posting privileges cost, say, $5 per month. After that initial membership, TR posts are free. For general forum posts, the site charges something like $0.05 per post. This sort of approach has countless advantages, not the least of which is keeping the riff-raff from posting to the general forums. And drive-by, snarky posts would actually cost the person enough to be self-limiting in most cases.
* NO anonymous accounts! Period. Subscribers can ALWAYS see the verified full-name of other members. A large part of the "tone" on many threads emerges from the safety anonymous people feel to say things that they would almost certainly never say around a real campfire. And then, people saying actionable things in their posts would have real personal liability.
That's a start, and I know that paying $5 per month and the incremental amounts for engaging in a conversation I care about is a non-brainer. And I would much appreciate the "maturity" that would naturally emerge on a forum where people had to care enough to PAY (and be personally accountable) for their posts.
Moreover, some proposals for a "historical archive" that have emerged over the years are troubling insofar as the principle people have clear axes to grind, which means that the "history" will be tainted by bias, both in terms of what gets posted and in terms of how it is commented upon.
Moreover, some of the these same people have been among the most flagrant copyright violators on this site, a fact I have repeatedly called them on, to no avail. Posting hundreds of scanned, copyright-violating articles does NOT make you a "historian," and it opens your "historical site" to being sued out of existence almost immediately, as you can no longer appeal to safe harbor! So, nobody should believe in the long-term credibility of a "historical site" that is run by people who have evidenced long-term commitment to violating copyright (or have demonstrated long-term ignorance of how copyright even works).
The huge advantage SuperTopo presently has over every other alternative, imo, is that its history emerged organically, which just is credible by nature, as the very process allows for the whole community to engage in the discussion of what that history really has been, what it means, and produces NEW history in virtue of the very shared meanings that get attached to the stories as they emerge.
These are just my thoughts, and I don't have any particular commitment to any of these ideas (other than that committed copyright-violators have NO business claiming to be "historians" and trying to float "archives"). I would personally like to see SuperTopo remain the venue that it has been, and I have NO problem putting my money where my mouth is, both in terms of occasional large donations and monthly subscription fees.
I find Chris to be a credible and basically non-biased person to "own" such a venue, and I have NO problem contributing to the upgrades necessary to keep this site alive in as close to its present form as possible.
Now, the most obvious objection to a model of this sort is of the form: "But I [or person x] won't/can't pay a subscription fee just to engage in conversations, so that sort of model will severely limit the people who can/will contribute, thereby limiting the 'archive' that the process could produce."
My response is: Consider it a contribution to the historicity you claim to care about. And the "contributions" of the riff-raff have PROVED to be one of the primary problems in keeping this site viable. It is a RARE person who can't afford $5 or $10 a month for something that supposedly matters to them. Cut back on the smokes a bit or one six-pack a month, and you've got it covered. LOL
Just some ideas. Now, I sit back, relax, and prepare to be ripped on.
:-)
|
|
JLP
Social climber
The internet
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 01:37pm PT
|
I do this when I want active links to be saved. The PDF’s I generated through Chrome had working links embedded. Saving the HTML is considerably more fragile and less portable, I think.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 01:45pm PT
|
More fragile and less portable: absolutely.
I'm going to run a dbl check and make a PDF of a thread with links right after I get back from lunch.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 01:47pm PT
|
Hi Roy:
Pardon me, but is that the cat that chewed your new shoes?
I have saved three versions of the thread I was interested in.
Web complete
Web archive
PDF
How is fragility/portability being assessed here?
Thanks in advance and the $5 is in the email.
Money don't get everything it's true
But ...
you know the drill...........
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Outside the Asylum
|
|
|
Apr 20, 2019 - 01:57pm PT
|
plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose..
Soon we will re-invent (electronic) libraries and librarians, and pay them to keep historical records for us. And perhaps also re-invent journalism, so that someone can watch, filter, and somewhat cogently report on current affairs. The former being in effect what MB1 suggests. Although there are places where much has been and is being kept - libraries (public, private), Alpinist, Rock & Ice (sometimes), Ascent, the various alpine journals, some guidebooks, campfire stories that grow in the telling. Even Wings of Plywood...
But ultimately, it takes money, time, and skill to do that kind of work. And a lot of judgment. And accountability - crowd editing has serious issues in that regard.
A relevant story, to illustrate dangers. A friend is quite involved in search and rescue. He was on a search, where they lifted someone with a helicopter. He and someone else took virtually the same photo of the scene. The other fellow’s was published in news reports on the search. My friend posted his to his personal page, or maybe FB. Next thing you know someone is pestering him for payment, on the basis that it belonged to the newspaper. (Which probably didn’t pay for the one it did publish…) Luckily my friend is a serious tech geek. First he was able to track down the source, contacted the newspaper, and found that there wasn’t a clear relationship between the two. (A sort of bounty hunter, maybe?) And, of course, could prove that he took his own photo, even if it seemed the same.
A local community centre made the mistake of advertising a family event on the internet, mentioning a popular childrens’ movie that would be shown. Next thing you know they’re being pestered by some copyright troll. In fact, they now regularly get anonymous calls, trawling for information about events and what they might be showing. Even though they are registered and pay all licence fees.
Presumably one can now put out a crawler that trolls the net – legitimately or not – looking for images that are or might be or which you can bully the host/poster into believing aren’t theirs, and either removing or paying.
The current US president is a notorious litigation bully. It's a modern affliction, although in his case eventually the rule of law will bring him down. Copyright trolls and bullies are another matter. It's not hard for them to start proceedings, perhaps in another state, and even get a judgment and try to enforce it. Defending can get costly, very quickly. And it only takes a demand letter to open Pandora's box. Sure, all the barracks lawyers grumble - but you're not the one receiving the demand letters.
I agree with MB1 that posters be required to positively identify themselves, that is to say provide a real name, address, telephone, and e-mail to the forum. However, as long as they do that, and know that at any time they can be 'outed', I'm ok with people using noms de plume. Sometimes there's good reason for doing so.
Must be a terrible nuisance for Chris and RJ, but at some point they had to pull the plug. Those who have resorted to insulting (or worse) our hosts owe them an apology.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!