• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Editing Rights

Go to CruxDreams.com
T

The Fallen Angel

Guest
Dear all,
Recently, following concerns from members like 111jack about the lack of ease of editing your own posts I had a discussion with ImageMaker about edit time out. 111jack and others who wanted longer time to edit their own posts and go back in time to improve others. That is a good argument which I supported, and IM being the gentleman he is gave way with the proviso that if anyone abused this right then it would be taken away. By giving editing rights to members I did not for one second envisage that a member would delete all their posts because they had a daft argument. But, just days later this happened and now I feel like an idiot and could***22!!11. Never mind!. Can I just say this. If IM keeps the editing rights then please bear in mind that this does NOT MEAN DELETING EVERYTHING AS OTHERS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THAT THREAD!!
 
Melissa, I saw your statement on the Messailie-thread, moments before it got pulled, and I am a bit "torn apart" on this.
It should be a fundamental right of any artist to have contributions removed. Its abusive imho if that was refused.
I am aware that there is a, frankly quite questionable, section in the terms that is stating something different:
You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content.

I marked the sections that are questionable (and in part contradicting) terms.

It's sure not in the best interest of this site to generate the impression that any art published here automatically is public domain and from there on can be used by the site owners as they see fit.
But that's exactly what those terms are saying, so pussibly that should be slightly reviewed...

Is another thing however that posts etc. have to stay on the site, or it is getting illegible.
Having said so, I think that an acceptable compromise would be to leave an edit grace period of 2 days and grant artists the right to demand that their own art be deleted at any time if they request it.
 
Crux has a new member here, pooper. He posted his art at Renderotica. He did not like that children and youngsters have access to Renderotica, and his images are "Adult Only", so pooper removed all his artwork from Renderotica. He can give you more details.
 
Fantasmo said:
Melissa, I saw your statement on the Messailie-thread, moments before it got pulled, and I am a bit "torn apart" on this.
It should be a fundamental right of any artist to have contributions removed. Its abusive imho if that was refused.
I am aware that there is a, frankly quite questionable, section in the terms that is stating something different:
You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content.

I marked the sections that are questionable (and in part contradicting) terms.

It's sure not in the best interest of this site to generate the impression that any art published here automatically is public domain and from there on can be used by the site owners as they see fit.
But that's exactly what those terms are saying, so pussibly that should be slightly reviewed...

Is another thing however that posts etc. have to stay on the site, or it is getting illegible.
Having said so, I think that an acceptable compromise would be to leave an edit grace period of 2 days and grant artists the right to demand that their own art be deleted at any time if they request it.
Click to expand...

Thanks Fantasmo,
I always appreciate your views because they are well thought out and based on your experience.

When you say "
You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content." are you referring to the terms and conditions as set out by the people who run XenForo because they were certainly not written by me, or any member of the Admin. I think I can speak on behalf of the Admin when I say that we have no intention of keeping an unlimited license to use publish, or e.t.c while at the same time the member still has copyright. That clause was clearly written by an idiot.
I pulled Hankstr's thread because he wasn't editing his posts..he was laying waste to the lot, not just pics but everything. When I argued with IM for editing rights for members it was on the basis that members could edit their posts i.e. correct spelling mistakes, change the pic, go back and delete a post to replace it with a better one e.t.c . I asked for the time limit to be raised from one hour to indefinite, which was granted. My request was simple and straightforward and nothing to do with copyright or ownership in general. What Hankstr did was not editing, it was deliberately ruining a thread that many people enjoyed, myself included.
I hope that this clarifies my position because I feel badly let down. I honestly don't think that members should post pics, take the praise, have an argument and then delete the pics out of pique.
Best wishes
Melissa
PS I think I will shortly need your help with shaved17's upload problem.
 
melissa said:
I think I can speak on behalf of the Admin when I say that we have no intention of keeping an unlimited license to use publish, or e.t.c while at the same time the member still has copyright. That clause was clearly written by an idiot.
Click to expand...
It's part of the terms in the lower right corner of the site.
I thought that this was a "general" text, that's why I pulled it up.
 
Fantasmo said:
Melissa, I saw your statement on the Messailie-thread, moments before it got pulled, and I am a bit "torn apart" on this.
It should be a fundamental right of any artist to have contributions removed. Its abusive imho if that was refused.
I am aware that there is a, frankly quite questionable, section in the terms that is stating something different:
You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content.

I marked the sections that are questionable (and in part contradicting) terms.

It's sure not in the best interest of this site to generate the impression that any art published here automatically is public domain and from there on can be used by the site owners as they see fit.
But that's exactly what those terms are saying, so pussibly that should be slightly reviewed...

Is another thing however that posts etc. have to stay on the site, or it is getting illegible.
Having said so, I think that an acceptable compromise would be to leave an edit grace period of 2 days and grant artists the right to demand that their own art be deleted at any time if they request it.
Click to expand...
Thanks for drawing our attention to this Fantasmo.​
I agree with Melissa, it looks like 'a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'​
probably unintelligent copying from some (paper) book or mag publisher's contract.​
Work's nearing completion on a revised set of Rules, we'll certainly get that clause replaced.​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom