Comments for Ten Reasons Why

Comment on Royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable licenses by JimL

JimL — Sun, 10 Jul 2011 04:49:46 +0000

If you are in the US, then the copyright laws of the US take precedence. If you publish something, either on the web or in paper form (and add the Copyright ) and have documented, dated and have witnessed your work, you can still sue for copyright infringement. Just make sure you have enough money to hire a good lawyer.

Comment on Royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable licenses by Yo

Yo — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 19:44:05 +0000

Clearly you are not an attorney. We all understand the reasoning behind the words in the terms of service; however, they *are* very clear. If I upload something to Slashdot I give then the irrevocable right to use it, modify it (apparently in any way you want), create derivative works from it or whatever else you think you want to do with it. Not only that but I give you the right to transfer that “irrevocable right” to anyone you want. So while I may still own it you can use it as ‘if’ you owned it. Unless you can think of doing something with it the is not covered in the terms…

Comment on Royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable licenses by Manish Deo (@Dmeaon)

Manish Deo (@Dmeaon) — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 10:57:54 +0000

Keep Posting, Thanks

Comment on Royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable licenses by lolzord

lolzord — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 07:33:43 +0000

That doesnt explain why “perpetual, irrevocable” (even if you cancel account, they can keep your data forever) and “modify, create derivative works from” (why does the company need to use your content to create derivative works?).

Comment on Royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable licenses by Mike Ober

Mike Ober — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:17:07 +0000

That’s not what your sample says. It says you give the site permission to do anything it wants with your submission. You can still make money from it, but the site can undercut you by giving it away. Basically your copyright is now worthless, even though you are liable for any problems your upload creates.

Comment on Royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable licenses by Ron Bigus

Ron Bigus — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 22:07:29 +0000

Sorry to hear that you actually believe that they (Insert website service here) will never really use your stuff except as you intended. The words used by these websites have real meaning and you are really legally bound by the agreement. The worst one I know of is Linked-In, there disclaimer and terms of agreement are ridiculous. User Beware !!!

Comment on Royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable licenses by Bruan

Bruan — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:09:36 +0000

Well, this agreement goes way beyond publishing. It says, “if you publish something here, we can publish it anywhere we like, forever.”. You’re not giving them permission to publish in the web, you’re giving them ownership of the content. As an author, I’d never agree to these terms.

Comment on Royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable licenses by Javier Gostling

Javier Gostling — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 15:00:32 +0000

As much as Icompletely agree withthe reasons behind these TOS language, I feel that there is a problem with the extent that the rights are requested. Under those terms, Vendor can take your content and outright sell it without your permission. Adding a little sentence like “to the extent needed to provide the service” would certainly alleviate these concerns. By the way, feel free to sell this comment if you find a willing buyer ;-)

Comment on Royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable licenses by Dana C. Andrews

Dana C. Andrews — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 14:28:39 +0000

Wow! is this article misleading.
An example web service NOT given is Twitpic which is currently actively selling uploaded photos without permission or royalties to uploaders. Basis for their actions is the same language this article claims is harmless.
Maybe this kind of conversation is best left to educated, certified, experienced lawyers who actually know the law (and torts and principles of evidence, etc) and not those who ‘think’ it is, or should be, a certain way.
P.S. In one case, the purchaser of an uploaded item is now claiming to be the copyright holder and banning the uploader from using/selling THEIR image (An English tabloid).

Comment on Royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable licenses by Jud H.

Jud H. — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:41:01 +0000

This is condescending without any legally-informed response to the critics of this clause. “Bozos” and “black helicopters” aside, does not this clause allow the recipient of content under this provision to do all the things mentioned, which includes producing new content in any medium and selling it? Just because that hasn’t happened (on any publicly/visible scale) doesn’t mean it isn’t legally allowed.