Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Welcome to Spiritual Forums > Forum Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-08-2020, 04:28 PM
tealily tealily is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,090
 
Q regarding "commercial" links (aka any kind of URL that may relate to monetisation)

re: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...ad.php?t=91921

Regarding the posting of URL's that have a monetisation component:
Just requesting if this rule can be re-visited, and perhaps re-clarified?
If I have grossly mis-interpreted SF's restrictions on linking to monetised websites, fantastic - just let me know!

-------

55Degrees posted a great new thread in the Tarot subforum looking at ideas to grow membership/increase community engagement - one (longstanding) point has been raised about our inability to freely reference/direct link to what SF considers "commercial" websites. At the moment, my understanding is that this includes:

- anytime we might want to link to an author's new deck, if that author also happens to offer professional reading services/opportunity to purchase decks or books etc
- an educational blog post from other tarot readers, including major Tarot grand dames like The Tarot Lady or Mary Greer (purely because both hold online tarot classes, sell their own books, and/or also offer professional tarot readings)
- an online tarot comic, in the event the artist has a link to pins or purchasable web art on the same website (they usually do)
- a kickstarter campaign for a new indie deck
- a really cute Tarot-inspired piece of jewellery on Etsy

etc. All these links would have some kind of monetisation/commercial involvement

Obviously this puts a huge damper on the topics we are able to talk about and the quality of any tarot education/entertainment discussion as we're never able to direct link to original sources - myself and presumably a bunch of other tarot readers have largely shifted to other forums for our tarot-related discussion :/

Based on other forums, the most common questions tarot readers tend to ask are things like "what kind of decks do you use, can you link me?" / "What books do you recommend for learning tarot - links?" / "What are your favourite tarot podcasts?" / "What are your favourite tarot spreads?" / "Can anyone recommend some great tarot bloggers?" (and again, usually an in-thread request for links so the original poster doesn't have to go trawling the internet for whatever was recommended - and almost all these links will be monetised so to be financially self-sufficient)

As a poster, I really enjoy respecting the original author/creator - so if I can't direct link to their work whenever I reference their words/service/product where relevant to the discussion, I'm disinclined to post. Case example: Anytime someone asks for help on the Celtic Cross outside of SF, I tend to direct link to The Tarot Lady's incredible online resource for this because a) she uploads it with stacks of pictures and b) explains it really well. Except my understanding is that I can't do that here, because her website also sells an online astrology subscription and links to her own online classes/books (ie, is monetised). Same for if I want to talk about the True Black tarot deck - can't link to the deck creator's website for card images because obviously he sells his deck there too etc... so if I want to show the images, I would have to link to Pinterest or Google Images (where the images may be illegally viewable) because the image copyright belongs to the deck creator, whose website I can't direct link on SF, because he sells his deck there too... ahh, the cycle of frustration!

I understand and am in complete support that users should never breach intellectual property copyright (eg never directly copy and paste other people's writing, and SF has some very clear guidelines on this), but would like to request if the simple act of referencing a site provided it's not blatant self-advertising can be made permissible (eg "hey, (insertnameoftarotreaderhere) explains this really well on their site - www.(insertnameofwebsitehere).com") as URL's themselves are not trademarked internationally. Even if it was a national thing - I'm presuming SF is based in the USA here - then it would go by USA law because that's where SF is "geographically based" and not be expected to comply with the copyright laws of any other country

It sounds like at one point there was an author who requested a URL to be taken down from SF - which is unusual, but I'm not sure this is a reason to avoid posting any external URL's at all (again, SF is under no legal obligation to avoid the posting of URL's; copyright refers to intellectual property rights of the web copy or actual product itself; the most common reason why a URL may be requested to be taken down is often because a competitor is trying to take down someone's SEO backlink advantage :O Anything beyond that is at your discretion, but not legal obligation, ie SF doesn't have to worry about being sued simply because one of its users listed a URL without the domain holder's "permission" )

(Sadly I know more than I'd like to about this as I had a copyright/trademark discussion with my attorney earlier this year about how to protect my own web copy, and have a close friend who is a lawyer in legal compliance, haha. eg, did you know all international trademark applications HAVE to be lodged in the USA? The only thing SF may want to do is have some kind of pop-up at sign-in +/- clearer and more accessible GDPR-targeted Privacy Policy to be more GDPR-compliant if it launches a paid premium membership, and I would totally be supportive of that!).

At the moment what we've been forced to do in the tarot forum is say things like "I'm not allowed to give you a link to the site, but if you google "______" somewhere in the first 30 links Google gives there should be a really helpful blog post about suchandsuch" (and depending on how well we paraphrase the text of that web link in-forum, we may actually be in danger of breaching copyright), or alternatively, not discuss the cool link/idea/comic/deck/tarot joke/tarot spread etc at all as we're unable to provide a direct link :( (again, most of these sites are monetised for financial self-sufficiency reasons - and obviously Etsy and Amazon links are online shopping websites)

Regarding self-advertising: There's been a suggestion of creating an Aeclectic-forums style premium subforum where paid users can submit their website links a maximum of once a month, or alternatively follow a common Reddit sub-forum rule that states members can only advertise within user flair - the tiny bit of text alongside a username viewable with every post - or within the monthly promotion megathread. Both are great examples of excluding self-advertising in the main forums, whilst still encouraging advanced/professional readers to participate in the community (provided they don't directly link to their own sites/services/products outside of the designated monthly promotion megathread/subforum/user flair, of course!).

The most active subforum I know - the reddit tarot subforum ('subreddit'), r/Tarot permits advertising within user flair and has clearly designated promotion megathreads - and at time of posting has ~250 members online
Interestingly, the much broader 'Psychic' subreddit only has ~150 members online at time of post (and notably doesn't permit advertising within user flair or offer any clearly designated promotional megathreads/sub-forums)
__________________
Please do not pm me with a reading request
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-08-2020, 05:50 PM
Lynn Lynn is offline
Administrator
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Past Pluto in the vastness of space and time
Posts: 13,918
  Lynn's Avatar
Hello

The issues we have with sharing links and advertising is "permissions" from the company itself. I get so many E Mail from companies where their information has landed on our site without "permissions". This can land in legal actions.

It is serious business to protect both members and the site host from anything that could become a legal issue. Some bigger companies actually pay some to search sites for infractions.

We too can not control what is a "legit" business and what might be a scam, and that too leaves us open to legal actions as we "endorsed" them.

I will give you an example I ordered a T Shirt off a link I found on a site, and then it never came, I then researched the company and it "does not exist" it was a scam, had a Web Site looked good, good reviews. But it was a "Scam". So as a member how would you feel if that was on this site that we pride ourselves in how safe we keep it ?

Left a bad taste with me that the owner of that site could care less I lost money as many others did. It as $20 bucks but still its a loss.

Oh and on the topic of Tarot Cards there is a huge black market there on "fakes" being made and ordered. I too fell to this one on where I ordered a deck that looked like a good site. Well I got the deck just fine and its original but I never got the Guide Book, I had to re order a whole new set.

Lynn
SF Admin
__________________
If the crow has chosen you as your spirit or totem animal, it supports you in developing the power of sight, transformation, and connection with life’s magic.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-08-2020, 03:02 AM
tealily tealily is offline
Master
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 4,090
 
Hello,

I get that web copy shouldn't be copied and pasted to SF (this is an intellectual property thing, and yes there can be legal action taken if this is the case), however the mere sharing of a URL link cannot be pursued legally - this is the point I'm trying to make.

To be super super clear: I get that copy-and-pasting of web text is bad. For example, this shouldn't be done:

"Someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post someone else's blog post OR writing taken from a commercial website writing taken from a commercial website writing taken from a commercial website writing taken from a commercial website writing taken from a commercial website" <-- this is illegal.

"www.(insertnameofsitehere).com" <-- this is not illegal, and this is what I'm asking be permitted to be posted on SF.

SF does not legally "endorse" certain links simply by having a user mention this on the site - this classed as free speech, not endorsement, as SF is a forum site rather than a specific individual/professional identity, and SF cannot be legally pursued because a user has simply mentioned a URL link. This is also why other bigger forum sites like Aeclectic, Reddit etc had no restrictions on URL link posting.

I'm sorry that you have at one point purchased a T-shirt off a bad link posted on a site and purchased a fake deck - my first questions here is what steps did you take to ascertain the product and company were legitimate before you purchased? Did you research your different purchase options carefully prior to purchase to see which looked most reputable? When you lost your $20, what steps did you take to get that back? There's a bit of personal responsibility here - hopefully you did all of these things including purchasing using a payment processer like PayPal which has some customer protection, but if you didn't, it's not actually the forum's fault.

From a legal point of view, that forum is not legally responsible for your financial loss - forums are the permission of free speech and do not personally endorse the opinions of their users (if they did, each user would have to sign some kind of enterprise agreement prior to posting, and would probably have to be paid in recognition of 'representing' the forum every time they post). With respect to a particular post that linked to a disreputable link, the forum owner has two options - they are legally entitled to keep the user's post up (again, free speech), or they can take it down (at their discretion). Any user screwed over by a bad link recommendation doesn't really have legal options with respect to the forum site (but may or may not be eligible to legally pursue the company they directly purchased the item from), but there are, shall we say, personal social options with respect to the forum site - they could politely follow up with the user who mentioned the link, they could post in-thread and warn other viewers that the link is bad, or they could do any combination of these things in addition to letting the mod team of that forum know.

Disclaimer: Good forum mod teams are good at spotting malicious bot posters (who post dodgy links) and I would encourage SF to follow this practice where possible to protect forum members.

With respect to the direct linking of URL's for "to purchase", SF also makes it impossible to publicly discuss trusted vs fake links (eg is it possible you would have NOT purchased from those sites if you had also seen a followup post where users said "omg don't buy from _____! The decks are fake!!!"), and it also makes it very difficult to educate fellow users on how to recognise dodgy sites from good, particularly as we aren't permitted to direct link to reputable sites here. A gentle reminder that my primary reason for requesting that URL links is not solely recommend commercial sites for the purchasing of products - it's also for educational and entertainment purposes. For example, I can't even direct link to any blog posts from the Tarot grand dames here (eg Mary Greer, Theresa Reed, Rachel Pollack etc) because all have links to their own online classes/books etc on their websites.

To use an analogy - I know that hot stoves can be dangerous to young children. I have two options: Never allow them to come close to a hot stove (ever), meaning they never learn how to cook, or teach them how to use a hot stove properly and safely.

If you are too scared of people getting burned (and basically tell everyone who comes to SF that they can never stand next to a hot stove again because at some point, a few individuals got burned), they will never learn how to be safe - and are going to miss out on a lot of the good things out there!

In this day and age where e-commerce, e-publishing and the online communication setting is rapidly expanding - even more recently due to COVID-19 - I think it is to everyone's advantage if we embrace that the world is "going online", and take personal steps to ensure we know how to navigate the online world safely.

-----

Back to the legal stuff: It would be different if forums were say, a legal company, newspaper, magazine, or trusted individual eg politician, celebrity, or royalty - but they're not. The legal responsibility for ascertaining that the views and suggestions of any user post are legit always lies with the individual, particularly if they're putting down money for something. From a legal point of view, it sounds to me as if you're treating forums as if they were a legal company (with all the associated legal responsibilities - this is why companies have to pay huge amounts in annual insurance and comply with relevant national accreditation guidelines - for example, my annual professional insurance fees are $XXXX/annum so I am very careful about whatever I say at work!). I'm very glad to be able to reassure you that SF, as a forum site, isn't legally responsible for the opinions of its users.

Legally, SF operates more like... a public park, where people are allowed to come on-site and communicate with others. Things like assault and sharing of copyrighted material should still not be permitted, but the park itself isn't legally responsible for what is said whilst people are there (with obvious exceptions like if the mod team is made aware of a pedophile or murderer openly sourcing victims on SF, but chooses not to do anything about it).

If you do want to talk about legal stuff which SF could legitimately be sued for, I'd be pointing to a lack of easily accessible Privacy Policy.
__________________
Please do not pm me with a reading request
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums