User talk:Keith: Difference between revisions

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 19:

[[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

[[User:Alexa|Alexa]] ([[User talk:Alexa|talk]]) 06:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@[[User:Keith|Keith]],

There is company in California that offers indoor skydiving, and obviously they have waiver to sign (with arbitration 😃), but it's not the issue I found there, but that part of that waiver is "consent" to "grant exclusive permission" to take photo/video, and use it in their promotional materials, and there is no way to sign the waiver without consenting to that photo/video permission, online form doesn't allow you to proceed. And even when we went to the place itself, staff said that "corporate doesn't allow them to print out forms to fill out, anymore, and all waivers need to be filled in online", means we can't opt out from that photo/video consent. So my kid ended up not taking that "flight", because we couldn't sign the waiver without consenting to photos.

Thank you.

[[User:Alexa|Alexa]] ([[User talk:Alexa|talk]]) 17 May 2025

@[[User:Alexa|Alexa]]

I think that fits the bill - although it's a smaller company, it fits within the frame of modern consumer protection and demonstrates how draconian the terms for even something like that can be.

Go for it! I'd probably say that this is a case where a company article can be created, and the TOS issue can be neatly summarised within it, as opposed to being a seperate incident article.

Edit: actually, I might have got ahead of myself - is this something which has been covered or discussed annywhere other than by yourself? If not, it may fall foul of the No Original Research rule, although a very basic page which basically just lays out the facts which can be established from their website and TOS, and does not provide any commentary beyond this, might be ok.

[[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

==Re: CAT Documentation==

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 [[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 20:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
+[[User:Alexa|Alexa]] ([[User talk:Alexa|talk]]) 06:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
+@[[User:Keith|Keith]],
+There is company in California that offers indoor skydiving, and obviously they have waiver to sign (with arbitration 😃), but it's not the issue I found there, but that part of that waiver is "consent" to "grant exclusive permission" to take photo/video, and use it in their promotional materials, and there is no way to sign the waiver without consenting to that photo/video permission, online form doesn't allow you to proceed. And even when we went to the place itself, staff said that "corporate doesn't allow them to print out forms to fill out, anymore, and all waivers need to be filled in online", means we can't opt out from that photo/video consent. So my kid ended up not taking that "flight", because we couldn't sign the waiver without consenting to photos.
+Thank you.
+[[User:Alexa|Alexa]] ([[User talk:Alexa|talk]]) 17 May 2025
+@[[User:Alexa|Alexa]]
+I think that fits the bill - although it's a smaller company, it fits within the frame of modern consumer protection and demonstrates how draconian the terms for even something like that can be.
+Go for it! I'd probably say that this is a case where a company article can be created, and the TOS issue can be neatly summarised within it, as opposed to being a seperate incident article.
+Edit: actually, I might have got ahead of myself - is this something which has been covered or discussed annywhere other than by yourself? If not, it may fall foul of the No Original Research rule, although a very basic page which basically just lays out the facts which can be established from their website and TOS, and does not provide any commentary beyond this, might be ok.
+[[User:Keith|Keith]] ([[User talk:Keith|talk]]) 07:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
 ==Re: CAT Documentation==