-
Please feel free to take a look and share your opinion. Here is the relevant section if that helps:
Ownership of content (updated)In the case of poetry, stories, or original artwork you post, we will not sell, reassign, lease, lend, publish in non-digital form, or trade it in any fashion without reaching an additional license agreement with you, though sections of it may be included inadvertently through reviews, screenshots, or advertisements for our web sites. You maintain copyright of said work, and are free to publish it elsewhere.
Except for the limitation above, by choosing to post on one of our web sites, you grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, reform, reformat, publicly display, publicly perform, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content throughout the world in any media. You also grant us the right to use your username in connection with that work. This right is necessary for us to have the right to post your work on the internet, and is limited by the previous paragraph with respect to your poetry, stories, or artwork.
-
yep
I think this does it well, Kevin. -
-
To whom are you contemplating sublicensing the work?
To whom are you contemplating sublicensing the work?I think this is a reasonable question to ask if authors are granting you this nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, and irrevocable right. We’d like to know to who(m?) else we are granting this right.
In the case of those on this site who are excellent poets and may actually be able to sell some of their work (not something for which I would qualify), how would this affect their ability to be able to make money doing so?
In other words, if their work is fully sublicensable to anyone you deem fit, and their work is distributed by those sublicensees for free, then what happens to the value of their work? How can they charge for it if it is available for free via several other venues, over which they have no control, in perpetuity?
If you are thinking that the sublicense is something you need in the event that you sell this site, then perhaps you could find a way to be specific about that.
Some definition of to whom this sublicense would be granted might put people more at ease.
And thank you for this site, as well as Allpoetry. I have learned a lot more at Sharepoetry, though. =)
Lilac Moon
-
-
Nothing Extensive
The entire paragraph you are concerned with is limited by the previous paragraphed and referenced as so by this statement: “This right is necessary for us to have the right to post your work on the internet, and is limited by the previous paragraph with respect to your poetry, stories, or artwork. “The second paragaph begins with: “Except for the limitation above” which clarifies the legal position of all authors. The limitation is very similar to your car insurance where a broad coverage is announced and then in the exclusions section later in the policy the limitations as to their exposure is outlined.
In this case, the second paragraph is the broad agreement and the first one is the limitation which is extremely clear.
Hope this helps.
Don
Site Supervisor
-
-
-
Huh
Why would you require such exstensive right of use? -
-
because to post your poetry, comments, etc, on the website, we need to have the “right” to do so, otherwise some idiot lawyer somewhere could try to sue us for it. Basically, my impression is that these overagressive TOU’s come from the sue-happy US society… I tried to make this as loose and acceptable as possible, but it is necessary.
-
-
Ahhhhhh I see. The litigious nature of our societies has raised its ugly head once again. It is a shame that you should have to worry about a law suit because I decided to voluntarily enter my work on one of your sites. One would think it is common sence that the right to post our work is implied by the very fact that WE input them onto your site.
I guess we all reap at least a little of what we have allowed to be sowed.
Thanks for the responce
Leonard
-
Trying to get an answer
I’ve been thinking about this for several days, and while I can see that there will be no movement on the “sublicense” rights issue, I would still appreciate an answer to the question I have asked above, which is:“To whom are you contemplating sublicensing the work?”
If you cannot provide this information, then perhaps you can state a reason as to why you cannot. That might help as well.
If you are thinking that the sublicense is something you need in the event that you sell this site, then perhaps you could find a way to be specific about that.
No matter what, I think the question I have asked is perfectly reasonable. And I am sure people would feel more comfortable if you included to whom you will be able to sublicense their work in the verbiage of the agreement so that they know to whom THEY are granting this license.
Thanks again for this site; I have learned a lot here.
Lilac Moon
-
-
-
I read this quite some time ago. Was it reworded? Because I do not see any difference from the first time I read it.
I don’t know.
I have heard the uncertainty some feel with this agreement but I just don’t see the confusion.When this is read in its entirety it is crystal clear and I don’t see how it could be a problem.
Legally, I doubt that you could post our work without this agreement (or something very close to it) and I see no threat within the content.I would assume this same agreement applies to AP as well as Sharepoetry. (So those at AP who fear a difference in terms at share. are in reality under the same conditions on both sites).
-
legal opinions differ considerably....
Kevin,As we’ve debated, this portion of the Terms is what all the problem is centered upon:
“by choosing to post on one of our web sites, you grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, reform, reformat, publicly display, publicly perform, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content throughout the world in any media.”
Persons involved in copyright matters in both print and Internet copyright have repeatedly told me that such a condition is not required to adequately protect I.Can.to corporate interests in regard to copyright.
specifically the sticking points are as follows:
1. the words “perpetual, irrevokable” mean that even a poem that has been deleted from one’s page still has part of it’s rights assigned to Sharepoetry.
2. Because of the above terms, a poet cannot sell exclusive rights to his works to print media publishers, because a portion of those rights have already been granted in an irrevokable way.
3. “fully sublicensable” is not required for copyright reasons at all. You do not have to have this right in order to use content on your own sites or in advertisements. Many, many “user content” websites do not have such a requirement. It appears to be more intended to build site and corporate value by defining site content as an sublicensable asset.
4. There is no need to “publically perform” any of our works. This would be granting you the right to “speak, sing, or act” our works. This is far outside the perview of the Internet, AP, or Sharpoetry. It is not necessary for the intended purposes of this site. (unless you are seeking to “build corporate assetts”.)
5. The words “in any media” is simply far too broad. I can see no reason for it.
In my view, in the view of people who work with copyrights dailly, and in the view of most of the AP/Sharepoetry members that I’ve discussed this matter with, the terms are still far too broad. It does not make any sense for us to grant you such broad ownership and rights to our works, even if they are later “limited” by subsequent or previous paragraphs.
In fact, such legal language is commonly used by attorneys to create abiguity and decieve less legal-savy persons into believing the “limitations” will protect them. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. In cases of ambiguity, the most clearly defined paragraphs almost always take precedence…. and in this case, it would be the blanket ownership statements. Basically, the “limitations” that Haikumonk keeps pointing to are not sufficient to protect the writers from misappropriation of their work.
Kevin, I am sure that your attorneys are telling you that such language is necessary, and that it is in your best interest to adopt it. They are partially right, it IS in your best interest to do so since the Terms grant you almost unlimited control on other’s work. Unfortuantely, it is NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE POETS to post here under these terms.
So….. in spite of the re-write, the terms are still unacceptable to me, personally.
N O Tillman
-
Uh...
It is really this that worries me:“use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, reform, reformat, publicly display, publicly perform, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content throughout the world in any media.”
I have two major misgivings/queries:
1. Any writer or poetry has a strong feeling of protectivity for their work. When a poem is published it is done so in a form that a poet has worked on and strived to achieve. As such I have severe misgivings over your apparent right to “Modify” “adapt” “translate” “create derivative works from” “reformat” and “reform” our poetry. No publishing company in the world would ever do that to an authour. A poet’s work is their own to change, not anyone elses. I cans ee two reasons, in the main for these situations. Firstly, due to changes to the site, formatting and such might change, as such you are not going to say “we won’t reformat it ever” in case it happens accidnetally or by utter necessity. I can also possibly understand you reserving the right to modify, if a poem is perhaps opffensive. However, again, could you not simply reserve the right to take a poem offline?
2. My second problem comes in the fact, that you reserve the right to reproduce are work elsewhere. Now, as it is, poets go to your site, somewhat like a public bulletin board, and “pin” their poems to it. If they want to, they can remove them. Seeing as this is the format, I do not see what possible reason said website might have for reproducing the poet’s work, unless it is for the purpsoes of publicity. And if this is the case, considering that sharepoetry seems so full of enthusiastic members, why can poets not be asked before their poems are reproduced? Will many realistically refuse? There is an IM system, poets are docked points if they do not log in regularly, are they not easily contactable?
As a last question, I would also like to know where a poet stands if he removes his poetry from the site.
-
My opnion
As far as I can see it are the best options else than not publishing on AP or one of the other sites. Every ICT-er knows that there are longterme back-ups neccesary. So even deleting doesn’t let the work disappear and on occasion of misfaillure on recent backups it can happen that old work will be placed back. I suppose this is a normal risk on using this kind of media. One cannot expect that one allone can mannage this broad publicatonary work without faillures.
I think if people like to read these terms in a aggresive way not confirming to it they should not publish. A pitty but only way. That might also be for people who intended to publish there work in bookform or else. Many publisher like to have exclusive rights and dislike previous publishing. One should consider this before.
Publishing on internet means sharing with the whole world who has entry to it. So if anyone reads it and write it down with his/hers own name on it. You don’t have any possible means others than have it registrated in an officiall way. Non so of any of the terms used does protect therefore. What they say is that the owners of these site will not and have no intention or whatsoever to missuse this voluntary published work else than for the only publication in respect to site and their members.To me I think it might be a good habbit if there are terms of publicity to respectfully demand for cooperation. Don’t see any problem in that.
| |||||||
Adding your reply:
Kevin
Sep 16 2:34 PM 2005
Reply