-
Kevin,
After much discussion and comment on the Terms of Usage, it appears that you are not going to modify this paragraph:“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.�
Reading all of the opinions of folks who commented, and the many e-mails I've received, this seems to be the only real problem…. and a primary reason that a lot of folks are not using this site. So, just for a clarification…. are you considering a REAL modification of this paragraph or are we going to have to go elsewhere to post our work?
-
Those with existing websites have probably been moving the best ones there already. Presumably if it is no longer here, it is no great concern.
-
-
unfortuantely, that's not the case
DeeCrepit said: “Presumably if it is no longer here, it is no great concern.”Unfortuantely, that’s not the case. The terms are clear that the lisence is irrevokable….. so even if it’s been removed from the author’s page, it’s still partially owned by Sharepoetry.
It’s really a shame, because the concept of sharepoetry is excellent…. but many of the most talented writiers are not posting because of these bad terms.
-
-
please read the full text
Here it is:
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.My impression is that everyone who had issues with this, had them resolved by the many edits and rephrasing I’ve made while working with you over the last month.
If anyone else is concerned with the current wording, I’d love to hear about it.
-
The salient words would appear to be in “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.
That is better.
“though sections of it may be included inadvertently” would be harder to control, and there is a somewhat remote danger of finding it repeated ad nauseam in TV commercials. Once it is in the public domain, it can be used by everyone. It would seem to be similar to the risk on any website that can be Googled, solely dependent on the respect and honesty of the general public.
-
ok.... once again
The problem that I have, and those I’ve discussed this matter with, is that the paragraph that I’ve quoted contains blanket lisence agreements that are not necessary for a Web-site such as this one, and are so broadly writtien so as to be determental to the poets…. and the “modifier paragraph” is inadequate to protect them.There is no reason for such things as “publicly perform” or distribute our works “in any media”. Essentially, this gives Can.To the right to use our works far beyond the intent of this site.
The problem with the Modifier Paragraph is that it does not define what an “additional agreement” might be…. and because of the original “irrevokeable” assignment, it is essentially moot. Since a poet cannot revoke the blanket assignments, he has no way to prevent Can.to from doing whatever they want to do with a given work. In other words, the “modifier” paragraph does not really modify the problem paragraph. The blanket assignments should not be in the terms to begin with.
I agree that a LOT of progress has been made in correcting the terms. They were terrible. Now they are just bad.
It is my hope that this matter can be resolved, so we ca nactually begin USING this forum… AND before theseterms get assigned to AP as well.
-
My thoughts on the matter
I do have to admit to a certain trepidation about posting further works at this or any of the other sights. While my work may not be of sufficient quality to be published I am uncomfortable with alot of the wording in these terms of use. I guess I should have read the terms closely before posting, my mistake, but knowing what rights I am required to give up I do not believe I will be posting any more poetry.While my work may be amaturish, I believed it to still be ‘mine’. With the terms as outlined here that is no longer the case. It is now mine and yours.
I have done a little checking and have discovered that other sights do not require such all-encompassing rights in order to legally post the works of their members.
While I appreciate the efforts of the creators of this sight, as well as the idea of this sight (and thank them for this), if I thought for a moment that I could regain complete ownership of my work by deleting my membership I would do so in a moment. While I have learned alot and feel I could learn more I think the price too high.
Thanks for listening.
leonard
-
-
You are SO RIGHT, Leonard!
Nosferatu said: “I have done a little checking and have discovered that other sights do not require such all-encompassing rights in order to legally post the works of their members.”Leonard, you are absolutely correct. The language of the Sharepoetry Terms are far broader than any other site I’ve looked at…. and the “irrevokable” part means that once posted a portion of the rights to a work are granted to Can.to Corp FOREVER.
Now… suppose a poem turns out to be a BIG hit…. like “The night Before Christmas” or something. Under these terms, Sharepoetry could claim partial ownership of that work and begin earning money from it through sublisences, and direct republication of it.
Now, I know that there is a “modifier” statement which attempts to soften the problem, but unfortunately it won’t stand up in court according to publishers that I’ve talked to. Legally, it appears that the “modifiers” are just fluff…. designed more to make the poets happy, than to actually protect their rights. The long and short of it is that the blanket statements should not be in there at all. Then they wouldn’t HAVE to be modified.
I’ve stated all this MANY times now on AP and here… but unfortuantely nobody appears to be listening.
-
-
Nope
Granting us the rights to display/whatever it in no way includes ownership or royalties. Please don’t jump to conclusions like that, you’re likely to start people panicking.
-
-
Not to nitpick, but, it’s ‘site’. Not ‘sight’.
-
-
Ok, I admit to being a complete layman concerning all of this and I would be grateful for info.
Does the ‘modifier’ mean absolutely nothing at all legally? In other words, is it as if it is not even there due to the wording of the other paragraph?
Once it states ‘irrevocably’ then any other conditions are not applicable?And if so, doesn’t this apply to everything we have ever posted on any of these sites, including allpoetry?
-
-
it's a grey area...
modifiers are legally meaningful in many instances unless they create an ambiquity or a direct conflict with other parts of the contract…. which this particular one does. According to folks I’ve talked to about the matter (I’m not a lawyer either) modifiers like this are considered “bad form” in many legal opinions because of the possibility of confusion. It is far better to state the case clearly to begin with, than to try to modify a poorly written blanket statement.About “irrevokable”: It is just that: irrevokable in perpetituity. The other statements don’t modify it at all…... and because of this, Can.to would “hold all the cards” in any attempt to negotiate the “additional agreements” mentioned. Even if an impasse was reached, Can.to could still use the disputed works in any way it chooses…. since the blanket statement is irrevokable.
I think Kevin has gone to a lot of efforts to make this a workable agreement…. and i HOPE that we can work this out, because I REALLY like the idea of Sharepoetry.
-
-
Terms updated again
That said, I’ve revised them yet again to be much more open. It protects us less legally, but I want to be careful to protect author’s rights and make this a place people are comfortable with sharing in.Irrevocable is necessary, otherwise you could send us an email changing the rights – and there’s no way we could handle that.
I used large, legally aware sites like microsoft, yahoo, etc, as inspiration for the wording of the TOC – most sites are using similar terms of use, or are as amateur as we have been without one thus far.
Please let me know if you have any more opinions or suggestions, before I announce it as a column.
-
Not bad.... not bad at all.....
Kevin, I just read over your latest revision, and can see that you’ve put a lot of work into it. I think you’ve done a good job…. and know that a lot of folks will appreciate your efforts.The only thing else i’d like to see is a single statement about the ownership of “removed works”.... I’d like to see all ownership reverting back to the writer. BUT, I’m not sure that’s legally feasable for you…. so I’m not going to let that stop me from posting here.
-
I too have been to reread the terms, and must say that I am much relieved. I felt a bit like a ‘bum’ complaining about a free service, but as they were written, I did get the impression of losing control.
To a large degree those feelings of trepidation are gone with the revised Terms and for that I am grateful, thank you.
I do truly believe that Share Poetry is a marvelous entity, and hope to be able to grow as a poet through further participation.
It is a shame that the letigious nature of our society leads to such conflicts of interests (real or imagined).
I am curious as to wether a clause is possible in regards to ownership of the work once the piece is removed from sight. In a comment above N O Tillman says it may not be feasalbe but I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be. Perhaps the problem could be mitigated with a clear statement of intent. If there were a clear statement of intent at the begining of the terms then the interpretation of the terms would be governed by the ‘intent’ of the sight would they not?
Just a thought.
Thanks again for adressing this issue of clarity.
leonard
-
-
Removed poems
the problem with revoking the agreement with “removed works” is that Internet materials are routinely stored in back-ups, retrieval systems, and so forth…. and it is very impractical to try to go in and remove each and every instance. Just bevcause we remove stuff from our pages, it does not remove it from the entire Internet…. cahched page, and a whole host of other devices still retain our works.Also, we have granted Kevin usage of “screen shots” that might contain our works in advertisements. It would be very impractical for Can.to to have to re-work it’s ads each time one of us deleted out works.
So…. I’m willing to concede that point in the interest of practicality.
What I’d like to see though, is a statement to the effect that “once a work is deleted from the site, it will be not be included in future backups.” so that eventually it will truly go “off-line”.
-
-
Seconded
I thought I'd ask why permission for screenshots cannot be asked? As this is a website full of ethusiasts, I'm sure you could find many willing to have their poems screenshotted. The only pages where this would be unworkable, would be a page like the front page, but there only names and usernames are displayed.Eitherway, I would like to see something in there to allow for poets removing their work, even if the statement is somewhat nominal.
-
-
| |||||||
Adding your reply:
Oct 6 6:24 AM 2005
Reply