/ Route description copyright??

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Mark Kemball - on 30 Jun 2012
I have just added a description to "hellbound" http://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/c.php?i=38936 when I checked the description, it appeared with copyright rockfax written after it!?! Why? (I went back to edit this and could see no way to delete the copyright.)Interestingly, the symbol did not appear with a description of Smoothtalkin'. What's going on? (Only thought is that the one is in the SW Rockfax guide and the other is not.) How can rockfax copyright my description?
jimtitt - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Mark Kemball:
Since you agreed assign the copyright of anything you post to UKC and UKC can do whatever they like with the copyright it seems obvious!
Wiley Coyote - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Mark Kemball:
They can't. Your copyright is your copyright....unless at some stage you ticked one of those Terms and Conditions boxes that we all tick but never read. If so you may find that you handed copyright to them, in which case, they can and have.
Was it Nintendo who jokingly(?)included a T&C in which you signed over the right to your soul and the blood of your first born and it went unnoticed for months despite being ticked by millions? Or is that just an urban myth?
Wiley Coyote - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to jimtitt:
Beat me to it!
The Pylon King on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Mark Kemball:

There is no authority but yourself
Duncan Bourne - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Mark Kemball:
An interesting conundrum. so if everything you post is copyright Rockfax what happens when say you post something, let us say a description word for word from Jingo wobbly or the BMC or CC, which is already in copyright?
Wiley Coyote - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Mark Kemball)
what happens when say you post something, let us say a description word for word from Jingo wobbly or the BMC or CC, which is already in copyright?

If you repeat a description verbatim you have breached the original copyright but since you do not own the copyright you cannot surrender it to a third party, in this case Rockfax, any more than you can give away someone esle's house or car.

Andy Nisbet - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Mark Kemball:

I would say the copyright is for your description posted on UKC, not the description itself. So someone cannot print out or copy the page but you can still send your description to somewhere else.
jimtitt - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Mark Kemball)
> An interesting conundrum. so if everything you post is copyright Rockfax what happens when say you post something, let us say a description word for word from Jingo wobbly or the BMC or CC, which is already in copyright?

Not much of a conundrum, you are breaching the intellectual property rights of whoever and they can take legal action against you and you are in breach of the conditions of UKC.
Andy Nisbet - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Andy Nisbet:
> (In reply to Mark Kemball)
>
> I would say the copyright is for your description posted on UKC, not the description itself. So someone cannot print out or copy the page but you can still send your description to somewhere else.

To add to this, the way that it is laid out on UKC could be considered an improvement on your original description; you cannot copy this. Or if someone else edits it, then you cannot copy the edited version. But the original is still your copyright and you can do with it what you wish.

Al Randall on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Mark Kemball: This sounds a little tenuous. There are only so many ways that you could say, for example, "Climb the wall on the left". I don't see how anyone can copyright that. I'm sure there must be more to it than that though surely.

Al
Neil Williams - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Al Randall:

True. But as the route itself is a creative thing, surely that would technically be subject to copyright?

Neil
In reply to Mark Kemball:

I haven't a clue about where the (c) came from or the legalities, but I'm not sure what you submitted is really a description?


Chris
Bulls Crack - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Chris Craggs:
> (In reply to Mark Kemball)
>
> I haven't a clue about where the (c) came from or the legalities, but I'm not sure what you submitted is really a description?
>
>
> Chris

belongs in comments?
bz - on 30 Jun 2012
This has come up recently here:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=506939

My advice is (c) yourself in the post which makes your intention as copyright holder clear. The subsequent claim by rockfax (or anyone) woyuld then be highly dubious and unenforceable. Personally I think the default for route descriptions on UKC should be (CC BY 3.0) [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/].

(cc) BZ
Mark Kemball - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Chris Craggs: Well, it can't go in comments, as I've been nowhere near the route so it can't go in my logbook. Protection on the Culm is always an issue and the info would be useful to anyone considering having a go at the route - be all accounts it's a very worthwhile climb that hasn't seen many repeats because people have been worried about the state of the gear. I just want to get the info out to any would be ascensionists and the route description seems the best way.(I agree it's not really a description but...)
Mark Kemball - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Mark Kemball: Regarding the "copyright" assignation, I can't find any reference anywhere on UKC to user agreements where I've assigned copyright to UKC (and certainly not to rockfax - isn't that comercially a seperate entity to UKC, all be it closely related.)

My thoughts are that whatever I contribute to the logbook system should be freely available for any user, including future guidebook writers, whether rockfax or definative.
IainWhitehouse - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Mark Kemball:
> (In reply to Mark Kemball) ....(and certainly not to rockfax - isn't that comercially a seperate entity to UKC, all be it closely related.)

No. They are the same. Rockfax and UKC are two trading names of the same company.
jimtitt - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to Mark Kemball:
> (In reply to Mark Kemball) Regarding the "copyright" assignation, I can't find any reference anywhere on UKC to user agreements where I've assigned copyright to UKC (and certainly not to rockfax - isn't that comercially a seperate entity to UKC, all be it closely related.)
>
> My thoughts are that whatever I contribute to the logbook system should be freely available for any user, including future guidebook writers, whether rockfax or definative.

"3.2 You agree that any material (including any Intellectual Property Rights in such material), including but not limited to material sent via bulletin boards or articles submitted for publication on the Web Site or in using any of the Web Site Services ("User Generated Content") may be retained as the property of UKClimbing Limited."
harold walmsley - on 30 Jun 2012
In reply to jimtitt:
What is the situation if you have already published your descriptions elsewhere (e.g. a wiki or a club website such as the CC one that has a new route section?) either before using them in UKC, or virtually simultaneously, possibly in breach of all the unread small print?

If UKC is assuming copyright of any descriptions I post I will be abbreviating any descriptions I post here in future so I can give freely available full descriptions elsewhere.
ads.ukclimbing.com
Iain Peters - on 01 Jul 2012
In reply to Mark Kemball:
>
> My thoughts are that whatever I contribute to the logbook system should be freely available for any user, including future guidebook writers, whether rockfax or definative.

I shouldn't worry too much Mark: whole pages of my original 1988 CC guide text were used in the 2000 edition, authored by Brian Wilkinson and David Hope. I took it as a compliment!

Hopefully we'll be bringing out a web-based supplement to ND&C soon to be followed by a bumper definitive. Either you or Stu Bradbury can then contribute a revised description which won't infringe any existing copyrights, but of course will be published under the CC's copyright.

Although a potential legal minefield I would hope that the huge number of FA and modified descriptions contributed voluntarily for the benefit of all climbers will be acknowledged by the various publishers and not be mired by parochial and self-serving copyright regulations. Without these original descriptions, edited where necessary, there would be no guidebooks and therefore no profit from publishing them.

In reply to Mark Kemball:

I missed this thread . Also, we prefer you enquire directly about things like this since there is usually an innocent explanation rather than things running away like they have this weekend (when most UKC staff are not looking at the forums).

I am not sure why that copyright is there. It was originally put for routes that had been copied direct from Rockfax to stock the database when it was set up back in 2006. It shouldn't be there on new entries and I will look into removing it.

Alan
In reply to jimtitt:
> "3.2 You agree that any material (including any Intellectual Property Rights in such material), including but not limited to material sent via bulletin boards or articles submitted for publication on the Web Site or in using any of the Web Site Services ("User Generated Content") may be retained as the property of UKClimbing Limited."

I will have a look at that statement. That certainly isn't the way we interpret it. Those T&Cs were set up years ago and I got them from another site to save paying any fees which we couldn't afford at the time. To be honest we really don't have the budget for legal fees now either so I may just delete that clause unless anyone with legal experience cares to offer a rewording to help support the site.

Just to reiterate, we don't claim copyright of route descriptions, that ©rockfax shouldn't be appearing and I have no idea at the moment why it is appearing - just a technical glitch.

Alan
jimtitt - on 01 Jul 2012
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

I wouldn´t be too hasty to remove it, you will lose the copyright to any articles and so on though you could cover that seperately.
However it appears that if you don´t claim ownership and copyright to posts on threads you have to put in place a system allowing anyone to delete any of their posts at any time which might be a bit of a complex thing to do and generally a pain in the neck. The Aric Adatesman saga on rc.com springs to mind!
EZ on 01 Jul 2012
Hahaha. That is absolutely shocking. I wrote a post that explained the situation. There was no bad language. There was no defamation. There was no 'wrong' information and it has been DELETED!!!! Are you guys crazy. A word to my email address to explain why would be much appreciated. I thought about requesting this quietly and then decided that it was legit to ask in public.

Anybody else who is interested in copyright and protecting their own interests for intellectual property rights should look up creativecommons.org

I am more than appauled at the removal of the post. What a let down from a usually more than appropriate ethical stance for site administration. Weak. Does it show that I am angry! I hope so!
John Mcshea - on 01 Jul 2012
In reply to Mark Kemball:
Haven't read most of this thread but thanks for logging that info, really useful on routes like that with marginal and reliant gear.

Jb.
Neil Williams - on 02 Jul 2012
In reply to jimtitt:

IANAL, but you don't have to specifically claim copyright for you to have its protection.

Neil
mav - on 02 Jul 2012
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:
Out of interest, Alan, how often do you change your T&C's and how do you go about notifying users of the change? I'm not aware of ever being sent an email detailing any, nor being asked to re-confirm on the odd occasion I sign back in. I'm unsure of the legalities but I've been notified of changes for other sites, and my expectation would be that legally changes won't apply to people who have never been told of them.

In reply to EZ:
> I am more than appauled at the removal of the post. What a let down from a usually more than appropriate ethical stance for site administration. Weak. Does it show that I am angry! I hope so!

Apologies, that was a mistake. Please feel free to re-post although in view of my recent comments, your post may not be strictly relevant any more. (Email me if you want the text and don't want top type it all out again).

Alan
EZ on 02 Jul 2012
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

Thank you for the explanation that you emailed me Alan. I would like to apologise publicly for my brash comment about the deletion and as noted to you in my reply to your email, in future if I am unsure about such a situation I shall be contacting you privately for clarification rather than on the public forums.

For those interested in my previously accidentally deleted post that may no longer be relevant... here is the text:

"In reply to Mark Kemball:

From UKC Terms and Conditions - here:http://www.ukclimbing.com/general/terms.html

"3.2 You agree that any material (including any Intellectual Property Rights in such material), including but not limited to material sent via bulletin boards or articles submitted for publication on the Web Site or in using any of the Web Site Services ("User Generated Content") may be retained as the property of UKClimbing Limited. "Web Site Services" is defined in Clause 5.2 below. UKClimbing Limited shall have no obligations with regard to the User Generated Content to monitor the User Generated Content to ensure that it complies with applicable laws or regulations. You remain solely responsible for the User Generated Content in accordance with Clause 6."

I would say that is fairly definitive. If you post it then you give up intellectual property rights to UKC. If you plagiarised the information that you post then you have already breached someone else's copyright and if they found out then they would be able to sue you. If copyright for information that you have posted is already owned by you, someone else or it is licensed under creative commons then UKC would not be liable to prosecution for using it as they would be doing so in good faith. They have indemnified themselves in this respect with the disclaimer (terms and conditions) linked to above (and actually linked at the foot of every UKC web page).

This should be a heads up for anyone who wishes to maintain information, such as route descriptions, in the public domain. Give copyright to some entity that you wish to hold it in trust of your wishes (noting that if you do so then you must list that entity as the copyright owner when posting the information) or create a creative commons license for the information (and again note on the post that the information is held under a creative commons license).http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Posting it to oneself doesn't prove anything because there is no proof that the package was sealed at the time of posting.

If you hold copyright or there is a creative commons copyright license already created for the content, then UKC cannot claim copyright for the information and are in legal breach of your copyright or the creative commons license by marking the content with a "©" and you could probably sue. I'm surprised that an entity the size of UKC has not got a legal representative to consider this for them, or maybe it has just never come up before or has been overlooked.

Side bar: For those who wish to use special characters on their posts like © or ® etc then you should look up ascii codes and use them by pressing the "alt" key whilst typing the relevant numbers on the 'numpad' to the right of the keyboard. A list of codes can be found here: http://www.yellowpipe.com/yis/tools/ASCII-HTML-Characters/index.php (and many other places on the web). Interestingly different web pages and different browsers use slightly different codes depending on the language that they are written in so you won't find © as alt+169 as the linked page suggests. It is actually alt+184. Sometimes a little bit of trial and error around about the right value will find the code you are after."

My faith in UKC is restored. Thanks Alan.
EZ on 02 Jul 2012
In reply to EZ:

> I'm surprised that an entity the size of UKC

It's worth noting that Alan explained to me that actually UKC is a 3.5 person team. So not as large as I imagined and worthy of a round of applause for producing the site and facilities that they do. *Claps loudly*
In reply to EZ:
> It's worth noting that Alan explained to me that actually UKC is a 3.5 person team. So not as large as I imagined and worthy of a round of applause for producing the site and facilities that they do. *Claps loudly*

Actually, I miscounted there. Closer to 5 but some do shift their attention between UKC and Rockfax.

Alan
In reply to mav:
> (In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH)
> Out of interest, Alan, how often do you change your T&C's and how do you go about notifying users of the change? I'm not aware of ever being sent an email detailing any, nor being asked to re-confirm on the odd occasion I sign back in. I'm unsure of the legalities but I've been notified of changes for other sites, and my expectation would be that legally changes won't apply to people who have never been told of them.

We set them up and haven't changed them since. We have never sent out an email about our TandCs.

Alan
cap'nChino - on 02 Jul 2012
In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:
> (In reply to jimtitt)
> [...]
>
> Those T&Cs were set up years ago and I got them from another site to save paying any fees which we couldn't afford at the time. >

isnt that a breach of copyright? ;)

EeeByGum - on 02 Jul 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> (In reply to Mark Kemball)
> An interesting conundrum. so if everything you post is copyright Rockfax what happens when say you post something, let us say a description word for word from Jingo wobbly or the BMC or CC, which is already in copyright?

Welcome to the wonderful world of copyright. It is probably worth noting that you don't own copyright of pictures you submit to the likes of Facebook either.
EZ on 02 Jul 2012
In reply to EeeByGum:

Actually you probably do own the copyright but waive exclusivity to Facebook by ticking their "agree to our terms and conditions box" whilst setting up your account. Once the picture is in the public domain because Facebook decided to use it for selling to an advertising company for example, then the copyright probably expires or is transferred to the advertising company. It would be interesting to know if they could then sue you for using the picture somewhere other than Facebook?

Sidebar: I did find it funny that when Facebook changed their policy to allow them permanent complete usage rights for all data on your account forever (the permanent/forever part being the change) that loads of people said... "na na na, not having that" and closed their accounts. So Facebook recanted back to their old policy of complete usage rights only for the duration of your holding an open account with them, whereupon most of those who'd closed their accounts in disgust re-opened them... giving full rights on their data back to Facebook. Oh the irony.
Simon Caldwell - on 02 Jul 2012
In reply to EZ:
Copyright stays with you and does not transfer to Facebook or anyone else. You are licencing it to them.
"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License)."

But all you have to do to terminate the licence is to delete the photo from FB.
Duncan Bourne - on 02 Jul 2012
In reply to EeeByGum:
Interesting that. I always keep copyright for my work and don't post any of it up on places like Facebook but I do know a few artists who do. I wonder if they are aware of this.
Simon Caldwell - on 02 Jul 2012
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
> I wonder if they are aware of this

Probably not, unless they believe the same myths as EeeByGum ;-)
In reply to Mark Kemball: That incorrect (c) notice has now been removed from that climb. Very sorry for the confusion this caused - it was some strange glitch in our database.

Cheers
ads.ukclimbing.com

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.