After much reading here and elsewhere, I still don't understand what is required for disclaimers, terms of use, and privacy policies. I know that some large Australian sites, like overclockers.com.au and whirlpool.net.au, only have copyright on their main page. If these guys aren't concerned, why should I be? Are they just fluff, providing no real protection? Are they redundant? Cheers!
Well, if you have Google Adsense they are now requiring that you post a privacy policy as part of their new TOS. (You can read more about that here. Why You Need a Privacy Policy) Many paid posting sites require a disclosure statement. And, I think it is a good way to let your reader's know that you are legit and not trying to hide anything from them. So there are a lot of reasons why you should have a page of policies and disclosures.
For google I plan to make one policy page for my network and reference it for all my sites. Disclaimers and policies can be very helpful IF you do run into trouble.
They are guidelines, useually all established websites that pay its members have them to have a set of guidelines that people can follow.
The TOS and Privacy Policy do serve their purpose. Yes, they can be redundant and no they don't fully protect your site from legal action. *Please note that I said "fully" because they do help if you're ever in a dispute. The TOS and Privacy Policy sets the tone of the site. Much like any agreement they are contracts. It assures the potential and current members there are rules and it's for the community's and their best interest. I'd like to stress that the TOS and Privacy Policy are only as good as they are enforced. If you have no intention of enforcing your policies then they are "just fluff".
I didn't know about that new Google policy. Thanks! Overclockers has GoogleAds so even he will need a privacy policy now Does anyone know of any legal cases concerning a TOS? You have to wonder how useful they are when even EULAs get trashed in court.
Most of what you will read in cases involving ToS, disclaimers, and EULA's will be about them getting trashed. Is this because they aren't useful? No, it is because most lawyers wouldn't bother with a lawsuit if the only thing involved was one of these documents and they felt that it couldn't be trashed in court. What happens in most cases (particularly with EULA's) is they make restrictions they have no legal right to make, they are overly long and hard to understand, and they are placed in such a way as to make them either invisible or ensure that people don't actually take the time to read them. A well written ToS, disclaimer, or EULA that does not make illegal claims, is easy to understand, and highly visible is very effective. Too many people have the attitude that if you agreed to it they can put anything they want in those types of agreements. That is just not true. If I put a statement in my ToS that says after agreeing to it you will commit a murder or send me a million dollars within a week or I get the deed to your house, then the whole document is not binding. Most cases aren't quite that cut and dry, but that is the idea. A ToS, disclaimer, or EULA is not perfect protection. Even if you get it written by a lawyer, there is probably a smarter lawyer out there that can figure a way to break it. But it is a good line of defense when used properly.
The TOS and Privacy Policy has to conform to the laws of the jurisdiction/county/country it's written in. Though, adding the million dollar stipulation is not a bad idea. In my TOS I added a humor snippets in between more serious lines such as:
Take your pick: http://blog.internetcases.com/category/contracts/ http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/licensingcontracts/
Be careful about adding humor into your ToS. I read a case the other day (or was it a UDRP decision) where it was decided that humor that was injected into the ToS meant that the site did not take the ToS seriously which translated into the ToS being invalidated. There may have been more to it, I cannot remember right at the moment. Not enough sleep, to much info....
You're referring to misrepresentation. A common way to invalidate the TOS is not to enforce it. I have every intention to do so at the best of my ability. Another way is to insert rules that are either illegal, unreasonable or cannot be enforced. I have no intention of doing the three. It's rather well written if I do say so myself. I see what you're getting at and I appreciate that you're looking out in my best interest. I can always revise it and will probably do so along with the Privacy Policy.
If I remember which one it was I'll post it. I don't recall there being anything else wrong with the ToS per se, but I can't remember. It does seem to me that while that may have been the only thing about the ToS, it was certainly not the only thing against the defendant. Like if all other factors had been good, that may not have been an issue, but because there were other faults the panel (or judge) looked at that with extra scrutiny. Like I said, if I run across it again I'll post it.
disclaimers: if I kill you, then I am sorry terms of use: I should let you know first that I may kill you privacy policies: you cannot tell other people that I killed you or will kill you, hahaha
Umm. LOL. As for Privacy it should be then: I will not release, rent or sell the names of the people who killed you.
No. The creative commons license has a terms of use, but it only applies to the pages/product that are licensed under it. If you publish your entiree site under creative commons then you essentially have a terms of service, but few entire sites are published under it. You may also want an additional ToS if you have any pages where people can post comments or anything like that. You will still need a privacy policy and possibly a disclaimer. Not all sites really need a disclaimer (though it doesn't really hurt).