[OP]
Member
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?
Member
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.
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.
"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg".
– Samuel Butler
Member
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.Originally Posted by Marty Tippin
Member
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.
"A good miter set up is like yoga pants: it makes everyone's butts look good." Prashun Patel
Administrator
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.
.
Contributor
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.
[OP]
Member
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...
Last edited by Marty Tippin; 12-01-2015 at 3:09 PM.
Contributor
Nice add Marty, well stated, I'd buy one after reading your terrific review.
Member
I had post on SMC about a woodworking tool used on someone web page. I just happened to run across it one day.
"Remember back in the day, when things were made by hand, and people took pride in their work?"
- Rick Dale
Contributor
Marty, I am curious as to what you would consider to be fair compensation?
Member
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.
[OP]
Member
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).
Member
Section 107 of Title 17 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.
[OP]
Member
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote