SMC Posts used as "Reviews" on Company Websites?

[Marty Tippin]

I was surprised to see some comments I posted here previously about the Leigh RTJ 400 in the "Reviews" section on the Leigh Jigs website https://www.leighjigs.com/rtj400_reviews.php

I suppose I don't mind that they used my comments, but I do take issue with having something I posted for the benefit of the SMC community being re-purposed as marketing material on a commercial website...

Does this happen frequently? Is it "allowable" per the SMC TOS?

[Greg R Bradley]

It clearly show it under the section "Customer Comments" and credits it coming from SMC.

I don't see that as a problem. Anything you post on most forums will be picked up from many, many other sources. Just consider search engines.

I'm sure they would remove it if you wished.

[glenn bradley]

I agree. I did a Google search on 'Leigh RTJ400' and the 7th result returned was your SMC posting. If you post it on the internet in an unsecured location, its game-on.

[Kent Adams]

I was surprised to see some comments I posted here previously about the Leigh RTJ 400 in the "Reviews" section on the Leigh Jigs website https://www.leighjigs.com/rtj400_reviews.php

I suppose I don't mind that they used my comments, but I do take issue with having something I posted for the benefit of the SMC community being re-purposed as marketing material on a commercial website...

Does this happen frequently? Is it "allowable" per the SMC TOS?

I once had the New York Times use part of my interview with a figure they were profiling and they gave me partial credit for the content of the profile. I believe what Leigh did was legal under the Fair Use Act, but they could have shown you the courtesy by informing you they'd like to use it. However, it may be a case of better to ask forgiveness than permission.

[Peter Quinn]

I'd find it flattering that they consider your comments well composed enough to incorporate into their marketing. Assuming you genuinely like the product and haven't been referenced out of context I see no harm on their part. Kudos for adding to the body of human knowledge publicly.

[Keith Outten]

I was surprised to see some comments I posted here previously about the Leigh RTJ 400 in the "Reviews" section on the Leigh Jigs website https://www.leighjigs.com/rtj400_reviews.php

I suppose I don't mind that they used my comments, but I do take issue with having something I posted for the benefit of the SMC community being re-purposed as marketing material on a commercial website...

Does this happen frequently? Is it "allowable" per the SMC TOS?

Marty,

According to section B of our Terms of Service:

B. Licensing

With respect to text or data entered into and stored by SawMill Creek, the submitting user retains ownership of such Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SawMill Creek. In any such case, the submitting user grants SawMill Creek the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

I have never allowed any person or company to publicly use any content from SawMill Creek Woodworkers Forums. Although there are provisions for me to do so it has never been done and if I was asked for permission i would insist that the author be contacted for permission to publish even though I am not required to do so....its the right thing to do IMO. I have sold DVD's of our File attachments in the past for a minimal fee in order to raise revenue to support TheCreek. On each DVD there is a text file that requires the author to be contacted for permission to use any picture or file that they own.
.

[roger wiegand]

Publishing something in any public forum does not void your copyright on that material. By agreeing to the TOS quoted above you've given SMC rights to use your copyright material. If Leigh doesn't have permission from you or your licensee (SMC) you can take a variety of actions from sending them a "cease and desist" letter to suing them for damages. Using such material without permission is bad form, and I'd find it unacceptable even if I might well have granted permission had they asked.

[Marty Tippin]

Using such material without permission is bad form, and I'd find it unacceptable even if I might well have granted permission had they asked.

That's pretty much the way I feel - just because something is on a "public" website doesn't mean it's a free-for-all. And it's one thing to be quoted (for example) by someone writing an ostensibly non-commercial blog post but quite another to be quoted by a company whose intention is to use your comments for their own financial gain.

On the page I linked to in the original post, I'm quoted right next to an author from Fine Woodworking who (I'll bet) either was given the product for free in exchange for his review, or at minimum gets paid to write reviews as part of his full time job. Sure, it's flattering that they thought highly enough of my comments to use them, but I get nothing in return for their use while they get the benefit of people buying their product, in part because of my words. Does that sound like a fair deal?

I'll probably drop Leigh a line and ask them to either compensate me or remove the comments from their website. If people want to read my review, they can Google it easy enough...

[Bill McNiel]

Nice add Marty, well stated, I'd buy one after reading your terrific review.

[Dave Lehnert]

I had post on SMC about a woodworking tool used on someone web page. I just happened to run across it one day.

[Mike Goetzke]

Ha - they quoted me too!



Mike

[Frederick Skelly]

Marty,

According to section B of our Terms of Service:

B. Licensing

With respect to text or data entered into and stored by SawMill Creek, the submitting user retains ownership of such Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SawMill Creek. In any such case, the submitting user grants SawMill Creek the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.

Keith, I think what this TOS means, in practice if not in intent, is that as far as the Owner of SMC is concerned, posters retain the rights to what they post. I don't think it grants me the poster a copyright all over the internet - it says that you don't claim a copyright. Do I interpret it right?

I admit that I'm no attorney, but I'm willing to bet that - whether I like it or not - if I post on the internet in a publically accessible place, it becomes public information and is therefore usable by these companies. Unless I say "copyright Fred Skelly 2015" or some such thing. Or unless Keith claims copyright for himself somewhere on his web page.

I don't like it either and I know I'll be seriously hacked off it ever happens to me. And I absolutely agree that the right thing to do is contact the poster via SMC and request permission. But I suspect they didn't break any intellectual property laws by failing to do so.

[Brian McInturff]

Well, you did specifically mention their product in a public forum. Asking for compensation seems kinda of childish.
If you liked their product then what's the big deal.
No, I'm not affiliated with any company.

[Keith Outten]

Keith, I think what this TOS means, in practice if not in intent, is that as far as the Owner of SMC is concerned, posters retain the rights to what they post. I don't think it grants me the poster a copyright all over the internet - it says that you don't claim a copyright. Do I interpret it right?

I admit that I'm no attorney, but I'm willing to bet that - whether I like it or not - if I post on the internet in a publically accessible place, it becomes public information and is therefore usable by these companies. Unless I say "copyright Fred Skelly 2015" or some such thing. Or unless Keith claims copyright for himself somewhere on his web page.

I don't like it either and I know I'll be seriously hacked off it ever happens to me. And I absolutely agree that the right thing to do is contact the poster via SMC and request permission. But I suspect they didn't break any intellectual property laws by failing to do so.

Frederick,

I never felt that web sites that claim ownership to someones creative works is fair to the author so I specifically stated in our TOS that the owner maintains ownership of their work that is made available here. Because we host this forum and the intent of this Community is to share knowledge it was necessary for The Creek to have approval to provide public access to all content here.

Concerning the copyright I'm not a legal professional but I believe that your words, drawings or other means of sharing your creative thoughts are protected the same as a video or audio file that we already know cannot be copied or used without permission. Just because you share something publicly I expect that your copy protection is still intact and other people or organizations are not allowed to use your content without your permission. I can go to Google and listen to music but that doesn't give me the legal right to copy or save the file without compensating the owner.

[Kent Adams]

Well, you did specifically mention their product in a public forum. Asking for compensation seems kinda of childish.
If you liked their product then what's the big deal.
No, I'm not affiliated with any company.

It's not unreasonable because there is an implied commercial endorsement used for commercial purposes. It's not unreasonable to ask for a benefit in exchange for the free use of the endorsement. Marty makes some good points. Some of those other endorsee's received compensation for their endorsement, but Marty did not.

I'd forgotten about another incident that happened to me other than the NY Times article. I had uploaded my son playing in his Buzz Lightyear Halloween outfit several years ago and Disney contacted me for permission to use those images in a commercial campaign. They sent me a consent letter as well as gave me some original Mickey Mouse drawings that were used as stills in a movie. Disney never ended up using my footage, but their legal department felt it necessary to get my permission to use the footage. I think the same thing may apply here as well. The only difference is that one is video "language" and the other is written "language".

[Frederick Skelly]

Frederick,

I never felt that web sites that claim ownership to someones creative works is fair to the author so I specifically stated in our TOS that the owner maintains ownership of their work that is made available here. Because we host this forum and the intent of this Community is to share knowledge it was necessary for The Creek to have approval to provide public access to all content here.

Concerning the copyright I'm not a legal professional but I believe that your words, drawings or other means of sharing your creative thoughts are protected the same as a video or audio file that we already know cannot be copied or used without permission. Just because you share something publicly I expect that your copy protection is still intact and other people or organizations are not allowed to use your content without your permission. I can go to Google and listen to music but that doesn't give me the legal right to copy or save the file without compensating the owner.

Thanks Keith. Every time we talk about TOS I get a greater appreciation of how much hard work, thought and consideration you and the original members put into building this site.

I'm guessing here, but I suspect one has to assert their copyright to claim it was copyrighted later. If I don't say on the front end "This is copyrighted by me", the user may have free reign with it. But what do I know - I'm just trying to think it through and could be totally wrong. My heart is with you guys - they should have asked. But I'm not sure it's automatically copyrighted just because I said it on the web.

It will be interesting to see if Leigh pulls the "customer comment" upon request.

Have a good day folks!

[roger wiegand]

There is no need to assert your copyright on works you create; you have it automatically unless and until you disclaim it. The marking requirement was eliminated a long time ago.

[Brian McInturff]

I'm guessing they will pull it if asked.
I guess it's the whole concept now a days to feel like you should be compensated if someone uses your opinion. Personally I'd feel honored if my comments were used, if I believed my comments. Trivial if you ask me. God forbid I copy someone's design either intentionally or unintentionally.

[Patrick McCarthy]

That's pretty much the way I feel - just because something is on a "public" website doesn't mean it's a free-for-all. And it's one thing to be quoted (for example) by someone writing an ostensibly non-commercial blog post but quite another to be quoted by a company whose intention is to use your comments for their own financial gain.
................

I'll probably drop Leigh a line and ask them to either compensate me or remove the comments from their website. If people want to read my review, they can Google it easy enough...

Marty, I am curious as to what you would consider to be fair compensation?

[lowell holmes]

Anything you post on the internet will never go away. All that you have to do is google your own name.

[Todd Burch]

I used to be a HEAVY poster on this site, sharing freely as much as I could. When I was woodworking professionally, I enjoyed the sharing, feedback, critiques, etc. However, back in the '04 era, it seemed (it appeared to me) that I had some avid followers from different woodworking magazines, because after I would post a detailed how-to thread here, it wasn't just a couple months later, featured articles were being published in different mags with the same topics and information.

This happened on multiple occasions. It kinda torqued me off, and I've not posted like that since.

Could it have been coincidental? Sure. Sure didn't seem like it though. I'm sure the mags frequent these fora for ideas.

[Marty Tippin]

I emailed the generic contact address at Leigh yesterday and advised them that they were using my comments without my permission. I requested that they either compensate me or remove the comments. As for compensation, I suggested that sending the RTJ400 Accessory Kit (all the extra router bits, etc.) or an equivalent cash payment ($175) would be fair. It was pretty much arbitrarily chosen, but seems reasonable to me -- how many RTJ400 sales so far have been influence by the (heavily edited, BTW) version of my review they've published? Probably enough that sending me that Accessory Kit (which costs them less than $100, I'm certain) is a drop in the bucket.

So far no response other than the automated "we'll get back to you" -- I honestly don't expect them to bite on my offer, which is fine; they can just remove my comments and call it a day. If I don't hear from them in a few days, I'll make a formal DMCA take-down request via the company that hosts their website which will get action almost immediately, as web hosting companies are obligated to take those requests seriously.

I'm well aware that my review is widely available with a simple Google search - not a problem and that's why I wrote it in the first place. But nobody makes money off of searching for that review and reading it (well, I suppose Keith makes a little bit indirectly if a new user reads the review, signs up and becomes a contributor, but I don't have any issue with that!). My issue is that a for-profit corporation chose to take what it assumes to be "public domain" content and re-purpose it for their own financial gain, disregarding copyright laws (and common courtesy.) If they had contacted me first, I would have gladly given them permission (and probably wouldn't have thought to ask for compensation).

[Wakahisa Shinta]

Section 107 of Title 17 (http://copyright.gov/title17/) of the United States Code


107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to
be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


I am not a legal scholar, but this case of a company using reviews for commercial purpose without permission does not fall under the "fair use" category.

[Marty Tippin]

I heard back from Leigh Jigs just now; they've removed my review from their website. Didn't even acknowledge my suggestion of compensation. That's a perfectly good resolution as far as I'm concerned.

[Frederick Skelly]

Glad it worked out Marty.
This was an interesting thread. I learned some things I didn't know. Thanks man!
Fred

[Mike Goetzke]

Ha - they quoted me too!



Mike

Doesn't really bother me. Just would have been nice if they asked first. I was one of the first to get the new jig and mine had a cracked handle damaged during shipping. As I recall it was right around this time of year and I was working on a project requiring the jig. They were able to find the part and ship it with overnight service and called to make sure I received it on time.

Mike

[Roy Turbett]

It's not unreasonable because there is an implied commercial endorsement used for commercial purposes. It's not unreasonable to ask for a benefit in exchange for the free use of the endorsement. Marty makes some good points. Some of those other endorsee's received compensation for their endorsement, but Marty did not.

I'd forgotten about another incident that happened to me other than the NY Times article. I had uploaded my son playing in his Buzz Lightyear Halloween outfit several years ago and Disney contacted me for permission to use those images in a commercial campaign. They sent me a consent letter as well as gave me some original Mickey Mouse drawings that were used as stills in a movie. Disney never ended up using my footage, but their legal department felt it necessary to get my permission to use the footage. I think the same thing may apply here as well. The only difference is that one is video "language" and the other is written "language".

Disney is very sensitive to this issue because they go to great lengths to protect their copyright material. That's how they made a fortune in the 50's with all the Mickey Mouse watches and Davey Crockett lunch pails.