Forums  /  The Site  /  "Lost in the GDQ event hype and other things: speedrun.com's owners, Elo, are attempting to re-license leaderboard data (previously under CC BY-NC) under our nose on their terms, removing attribution requirements and community ownership of leaderboards."
  SizzylSizzyl

uh oh

PearPear likes this. 
  KupsKups

Yikes

 
  Oreo321Oreo321

What does this means exactly? (as someone who is not familiar with legal terms)

PearPear and 11 like this. 
  11
(edited: )

@Oreo321Oreo321 What I basically took away from it is that a community cannot move their leaderboards off of sr.c unless they get permission from every single current and past verifier and every single current and past runner as of the new TOS being in place. Basically they're legally locking communities into staying on the site by making the demands to leave too absurd to comply with. Also apparently showing us ads and such was against the previous license making it completely illegal.

THE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE INFORMATION OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE INFORMATION. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER.

IvoryIvory and PearPear like this. 
  AelenwaAelenwa

And, of course, they are not making any announcement about it. Transparency is hard 😱

BrakshowBrakshow, IvoryIvory and 3 others like this. 
  TRLittleToasterTRLittleToaster

Thank you for bringing this news to the site, this is concerning to say the least

Act_Act_, BrakshowBrakshow and 2 others like this. 
  shenefshenef
(edited: )

https://speedrun.com/legal
"We may modify these Terms of Use at any time. Any such modifications will apply prospectively, from the date the modifications are made, as designated by the “Last Revised” date depicted above."
... There is no "Last Revised" date depicted above.
So we don't even know which runs cannot be moved away from the site.

Edit: presumably sometime during June 23rd according to this post: https://twitter.com/TheNameOfMike/status/1413735024386527232

IvoryIvory, discranoladiscranola and 4 others like this. 
  MasterOfMikeMasterOfMike
(edited: )

Yeah basically the last time it really got massively modified was June 23rd, it appears to have been edited once on June 25th to change the minimum age from 16 to 13 but otherwise yeah June 23rd was the last real modification.

Edit: adding this in so people can see the whole edit history that has been logged currently: https://www.reddit.com/r/speedrun/comments/ohamgv/lost_in_the_gdq_event_hype_and_other_things/h4o8aru?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

IvoryIvory, QuivicoQuivico and 11 like this. 
  jackzfimljackzfiml

After reading this thread, I have a feeling that Elo is gonna get sued someday.

OxkniferOxknifer likes this. 
  happycamper_happycamper_

This is concerning to say the least...

I'm not gonna approve runs until I have more information which is the exact date & time that runs are not under Creative Commons anymore.
I guess I'll have to mark the runs in the leaderboards I manage if they are (CC) or "new TOS". Screenshots + comments should hopefully do the trick for now.

OR another spontaneous idea: adding a variable to the runs to make it visible if it is (CC) or not. I have to ponder about that.

 
  hahhah42hahhah42

Originally posted by 1What I basically took away from it is that a community cannot move their leaderboards off of sr.c unless they get permission from every single current and past verifier and every single current and past runner as of the new TOS being in place
I don't think this could possibly be true. SRC doesn't host videos of runs, doesn't have ownership over them, and therefore can't validly claim copyright regarding them. The length of each run is information contained within the videos themselves, so src can't have ownership of that, either. As such, they can't stop you or anyone else from making & maintaining your own leaderboards. I suppose they could potentially claim ownership over the description of the run, but that's really a secondary issue in the scheme of things.

Obviously, it's possible for them to make bs copyright claims/takedowns, but that would be the case regardless of the TOS.

PearPear and jackzfimljackzfiml like this. 
  11

Originally posted by hahhah42
I don't think this could possibly be true. SRC doesn't host videos of runs, doesn't have ownership over them, and therefore can't validly claim copyright regarding them.

They claim ownership of the data regarding the run such as the category, time, etc. from what I understood.

Originally posted by jackzfiml
After reading this thread, I have a feeling that Elo is gonna get sued someday.

If we wanted to, they could have been sued (successfully) for not cooperating with GDPR before they had added the option to export data.

IvoryIvory, PearPear and jackzfimljackzfiml like this. 
  hahhah42hahhah42

Quote

They claim ownership of the data regarding the run such as the category, time, etc. from what I understood.
Not clear at this time that this is the case. Also, not entirely relevant—regardless of how the TOS is worded, they can't make a valid claim to ownership over data that's contained in videos they don't own.

For a straightforward example, consider games that use IGT. If I decided to make a site with a list of the fastest times in Deepest Sword, they couldn't stop me from making a list of video links, as they don't own those. The time is clearly visible in the video of each of the runs, so they don't have a valid claim to ownership over that detail simply because someone chose to submit the run to this site. It's a simple observation that anyone who watches the video can make & comment on. So they couldn't stop me from including the time of each run as a descriptor in my list of links, either.

PearPear likes this. 
  tdp2612tdp2612

Sites fukd everyone move to cyberscore

KomradeKomrade likes this. 
  PearPear

Sooo… should I stop verifying runs for now? I’m not sure how I should be approaching this as mod of a small board.

MinecraftGamingMinecraftGaming likes this. 
  shenefshenef

I'll certainly stop submitting runs and won't ("officially") verify runs that are less than 20 days old (to give elo time to resolve this and be somewhat fair to people that want their run on a board regardless).

 
  CamcorderCamcorder

Hi all,

This was an error of omission as we updated the TOS for other reasons (it's pretty standard boilerplate, but needs to be there). We have not made any change to how runs (or other community metadata or resources) are licensed or made accessible. To make that perfectly clear, we've re-introduced the language making it clear that all submissions are made accessible under the original CC license.

To clarify our stance on the topic, we strongly believe in SR.C as an open platform for use by communities, and we have no interest in restricting access to any runs or community resources. We see it as our duty to keep this information available online forever.

I'm sorry for the miscommunication (it was my mistake) and will be more careful in the future. With that said, please understand that while Elo is a company, it's run by people (myself included) who truly do care about the core mission of the site - helping communities organize, grow, and preserving history. The last thing we want to do is restrict access to resources that are owned by the community.

Thanks for reading. I hope it alleviates your concerns. I'm happy to elaborate if anything is unclear.

- Jason, CTO at Elo

nupalinupali, IvoryIvory and 26 others like this. 
  shenefshenef
(edited: )

Could you please add the “Last Revised” date that is mentioned in the TOS but does not exist anywhere on the TOS page?

O.D.W.O.D.W., QuivicoQuivico and 5 others like this. 
  CamcorderCamcorder
(edited: )

Originally posted by shenefCould you please add the “Last Revised” date that is mentioned in the TOS but does not exist anywhere on the TOS page?

@shenefshenef indeed, should be fixed now!

MrMonshMrMonsh, O.D.W.O.D.W. and 6 others like this.