By the time I finished reading the new Terms

[jlee]

Anyone have any impressions on how the TOS would act if we just provided a link to the images instead of embedding them? It would be my assumption that the TOS wouldn't apply as Purch isn't hosting the images. Could be a way around it

That's an interesting question.

4.1 User Content. The Services may enable you to submit, post, upload, or otherwise make available (collectively, “post”) content such as video clips, photographs, reviews, public messages, ideas, comments and other content (collectively, “User Content”) that may or may not be viewable by other users. You acknowledge and agree that all User Content, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, is the sole responsibility of the person from whom the User Content originated. You further agree that you have all required rights to post such User Content without violation of any third-party rights.

Unless we have the ability to host videos through the forums, I can only assume that "otherwise make available" includes a link to off-site material. The difference in presentation (i.e. linked vs. embedded) arguably provides the same content, i.e. "makes (it) available" from a post.

I dunno...IANAL.

 

[jsimenhoff]

Our benevolent forum overlord, aka Esquared, informed me some of you had some issues with our updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. I thought it best to chime in and assuage your fears or confusion over the newest legalese. In particular, I understand that you are concerned with the following clause:

Our License to User Content. When you post User Content on or through the Services, you grant Purch a world-wide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and sub-licenseable license to use, copy, distribute, reproduce, modify, edit, adapt, publicly perform, publicly display, translate, create derivative works from, sell, lease, transmit, disassemble, and publish such User Content, in whole or in part, in any format or medium now known or developed in the future, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Services (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You acknowledge and agree that your user name may be associated with any User Content that you post.

This language is not that different from language used in the previous Terms of Use:

6.1 By sharing, submitting and uploading any User Content, you grant Purch a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use, copy, distribute, display, publish, perform, sell, lease, transmit, adapt, translate, modify, reverse-engineer, disassemble and create derivative works from your User Content in any legal manner for the benefit of Purch. 6.2 You irrevocably waive and agree not to assert any rights that you have to prevent us from exploiting the rights granted in Subsection 6.1. 6.3 You also grant us the right to use and display the name that you submit with any User Content in connection with such User Content.

I also want to point out that this clause is standard across most communities and publishing sites. For example, here it is nearly word for word in Reddit's User Agreement:

By submitting user content to reddit, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so.

While the exact wording may be jarring, the clause enables us to publish the forum on a worldwide basis, and on different platforms as they evolve. It allows access to the forum via different kinds of devices and ensures that we do not have to unexpectedly pull down forum comments and threads. In order to publish the forums worldwide, and allow you to upload images, text, or any other contribution to the forums we must have "world-wide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and sub-licenseable license….". Without that clause we would have to constantly re-evaluate our ability to offer the forums to people in different locations and who may want to access it through different channels or devices.

The AnanadTech Forum is a free service provided to you. We require that the grant of this service to be “royalty-free” as we wouldn’t expect that you would charge a royalty for the content and images that you post on AT Forum, or that you would post third party content requiring royalty fees. All of that said, please note that the grant of rights is non-exclusive and you retain ownership to it even after you post it.

- Josh, AnandTech Assistant Community Manager

 

[CuriousMike]

I think it's the "sell, lease" that bothers me.

I[edit]t kinda says that you can sell my photos.

 

[Rifter]

I think it's the "sell, lease" that bothers me.

I[edit]t kinda says that you can sell my photos.

exactly, you dont need to have the terms sell or lease in there strictly to distribute it to the WWW.

 

[Red Squirrel]

What if I link to a forum post on my own website that has pictures? Does AT now have IP rights to my website and it's content?

I don't know how a clause like this is even legal. How is it different than a website linking to someone else's content, and just being able to write a TOS that says they own everything that they link to?

I guess it's time we watermark all our images.

 

[Humpy]

Who let Josh in here?

 

[Rifter]

I guess it's time we watermark all our images.

Im actually just looking up how to do this in lightroom now, it seems very easy.

 

[John Connor]

The TOS are poorly written in my opinion. Doesn't even mention my rights pertaining to the DMCA with MY pictures.

 

[lxskllr]

Everything I create should be assumed to be cc-by-sa. That should fit within the tos.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Im actually just looking up how to do this in lightroom now, it seems very easy.

Yeah not hard to do with any program, though something that can do it in a batch is even more ideal. Just make sure you keep the originals so if someone does want to use an image you can still provide it.

Personally I have zero issues with people using my images, I've even had requests before from book authors that just happen to stumble on my site and find a picture that ire relevant to a book they're writing. I always grant permission, I just ask for basic credit, even if it's just at the end of the book or something. I just don't like the idea of a marketing company using it for profit and potentially also gaining rights. Normally if a big enough corporation uses something that belongs to you they essentially get all the rights too and can then sue you for using it. I'm not sure if Purch would go that far, but it happens all the time on Youtube. A bigger channel uses something from a small channel then the small channel gets a take down notice/strike etc.

 

[Anubis]

per the photo question, this issue comes up a lot in the photography subreddit and in most cases a EULA can't over ride the inherent copyright of the photographer taking the photo but you would have to fight it

 

[Exterous]

Our benevolent forum overlord, aka Esquared, informed me some of you had some issues with our updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. I thought it best to chime in and assuage your fears or confusion over the newest legalese. In particular, I understand that you are concerned with the following clause:

Our License to User Content. When you post User Content on or through the Services, you grant Purch a world-wide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and sub-licenseable license to use, copy, distribute, reproduce, modify, edit, adapt, publicly perform, publicly display, translate, create derivative works from, sell, lease, transmit, disassemble, and publish such User Content, in whole or in part, in any format or medium now known or developed in the future, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Services (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You acknowledge and agree that your user name may be associated with any User Content that you post.

I also want to point out that this clause is standard across most communities and publishing sites. For example, here it is nearly word for word in Reddit's User Agreement:

By submitting user content to reddit, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so.

Reddit's User Agreement doesn't say Reddit can sell or lease your images. Just because something is almost word for word that doesn't preculde significant differences in legal\contractual\eula situations. Adding a single word can change an affirmative statement into a negative statement even if its 'nearly word for word'

 

[jsimenhoff]

What if I link to a forum post on my own website that has pictures? Does AT now have IP rights to my website and it's content?

I don't know how a clause like this is even legal. How is it different than a website linking to someone else's content, and just being able to write a TOS that says they own everything that they link to?

I guess it's time we watermark all our images.

The ownership portion of the clause only applies to content you upload directly to the AnandTech forums. It does not apply to linked material, or copyrighted content. For reference please see my final paragraph:

We require that the grant of this service to be “royalty-free” as we wouldn’t expect that you would charge a royalty for the content and images that you post on AT Forum, or that you would post third party content requiring royalty fees.​

 

[jlee]

Our benevolent forum overlord, aka Esquared, informed me some of you had some issues with our updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. I thought it best to chime in and assuage your fears or confusion over the newest legalese. In particular, I understand that you are concerned with the following clause:

Our License to User Content. When you post User Content on or through the Services, you grant Purch a world-wide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and sub-licenseable license to use, copy, distribute, reproduce, modify, edit, adapt, publicly perform, publicly display, translate, create derivative works from, sell, lease, transmit, disassemble, and publish such User Content, in whole or in part, in any format or medium now known or developed in the future, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Services (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You acknowledge and agree that your user name may be associated with any User Content that you post.

This language is not that different from language used in the previous Terms of Use:

6.1 By sharing, submitting and uploading any User Content, you grant Purch a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use, copy, distribute, display, publish, perform, sell, lease, transmit, adapt, translate, modify, reverse-engineer, disassemble and create derivative works from your User Content in any legal manner for the benefit of Purch. 6.2 You irrevocably waive and agree not to assert any rights that you have to prevent us from exploiting the rights granted in Subsection 6.1. 6.3 You also grant us the right to use and display the name that you submit with any User Content in connection with such User Content.

I also want to point out that this clause is standard across most communities and publishing sites. For example, here it is nearly word for word in Reddit's User Agreement:

By submitting user content to reddit, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so.

While the exact wording may be jarring, the clause enables us to publish the forum on a worldwide basis, and on different platforms as they evolve. It allows access to the forum via different kinds of devices and ensures that we do not have to unexpectedly pull down forum comments and threads. In order to publish the forums worldwide, and allow you to upload images, text, or any other contribution to the forums we must have "world-wide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and sub-licenseable license….". Without that clause we would have to constantly re-evaluate our ability to offer the forums to people in different locations and who may want to access it through different channels or devices.

The AnanadTech Forum is a free service provided to you. We require that the grant of this service to be “royalty-free” as we wouldn’t expect that you would charge a royalty for the content and images that you post on AT Forum, or that you would post third party content requiring royalty fees. All of that said, please note that the grant of rights is non-exclusive and you retain ownership to it even after you post it.

- Josh, AnandTech Assistant Community Manager

That specifically says that if I post an image in this forum, you can sell it. That is not necessary, and it is not similar to the Reddit TOS sample you provided.

If you have any other examples handy of commonly-frequented websites that do require users to allow them to sell their content without any restrictions or permission, please post them here so we can avoid them.

I've been here a really long time and this has me reconsidering my level of participation.

 

[jlee]

The ownership portion of the clause only applies to content you upload directly to the AnandTech forums. It does not apply to linked material, or copyrighted content. For reference please see my final paragraph:

We require that the grant of this service to be “royalty-free” as we wouldn’t expect that you would charge a royalty for the content and images that you post on AT Forum, or that you would post third party content requiring royalty fees.​

The definition of User Content, to which the aforementioned section assigns you a license:

4. USER CONTENT AND FEEDBACK

4.1 User Content. The Services may enable you to submit, post, upload, or otherwise make available (collectively, “post”) content such as video clips, photographs, reviews, public messages, ideas, comments and other content (collectively, “User Content”) that may or may not be viewable by other users. You acknowledge and agree that all User Content, whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, is the sole responsibility of the person from whom the User Content originated. You further agree that you have all required rights to post such User Content without violation of any third-party rights.

I wasn't aware that the forums offered a video clip hosting service; if it does not, to what video content is this clause referring? It also specifies "ideas," effectively directly stating that Purch could commercialize and profit from any idea or concept published on the site. Otherwise, "public messages, comments, and other content" would be an adequate summation.

If content hosted by third parties is excluded, why is that not clarified? The current TOS is ambiguous and could easily be interpreted in the way that has us concerned (as evidenced by the number of people here discussing it).

If there is a portion of the Terms of Service that explains that the ownership clause only applies to material that's uploaded directly to Anandtech, could you note the section for me? I didn't find anything of the sort on my earlier read but I may have missed it.

 

[jsimenhoff]

Reddit's User Agreement doesn't say Reddit can sell or lease your images.

You may have a missed it, but their user agreement does give them the right to use your content for "commercial purposes," which would include the selling and leasing of content.

By submitting user content to reddit, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so.
​

I only used reddit as an example due to the similarities between our services. These clauses are extremely widespread and can be found in most ToS. Uploaded content publicly available on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or most other social media networks gives them the same royalty-free distribution rights. It's the same case when you upload a public image or file to Google Drive or Apple iCloud.

To reiterate: the purpose of this clause is to ensure that we can publish the forum worldwide, on any available platform, and give you access from any current or future device.

 

[sdifox]

exactly, you dont need to have the terms sell or lease in there strictly to distribute it to the WWW.

You misread. It is not the pix you link they are interested in. They want to pimp your ass :awe:

 

[IronWing]

You misread. It is not the pix you link they are interested in. They want to pimp your ass :awe:

Anyone who wanted to rent ATOT asses would have to have serious self-esteem issues.

 

[sdifox]

Anyone who wanted to rent ATOT asses would have to have serious self-esteem issues.

You are clearly not familiar with the sex trade :whiste:

 

[shortylickens]

Well, we did have a guy rent OUT his ass for a video card. But thats the only one I know about.

 

[sdifox]

Well, we did have a guy rent OUT his ass for a video card. But thats the only one I know about.

Video cards. SLI setup

 

[olds]

Who wrote it? That's some shitty writing. Perk must be rolling over in his grave.

 

[zinfamous]

This jumped out to me:



It looks to me like anyone posting anything here (in the photography forum's photo of the day thread, for example) could have their photo sold in any manner of ways without their knowledge or consent.

They are stealing all of my brilliant witticisms! D:

 

[jlee]

You may have a missed it, but their user agreement does give them the right to use your content for "commercial purposes," which would include the selling and leasing of content.

By submitting user content to reddit, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, perform, or publicly display your user content in any medium and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so.
​

I only used reddit as an example due to the similarities between our services. These clauses are extremely widespread and can be found in most ToS. Uploaded content publicly available on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or most other social media networks gives them the same royalty-free distribution rights. It's the same case when you upload a public image or file to Google Drive or Apple iCloud.

To reiterate: the purpose of this clause is to ensure that we can publish the forum worldwide, on any available platform, and give you access from any current or future device.

Distribution rights are not the same as rights of sale or lease. I spot-checked Instagram's ToS and they do not demand rights of sale. Facebook goes even further, to say:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

Both sites begin with verbage stating specifically that content you post is owned by you.

There are no reassuring precautionary phrases in the Purch ToS. To the contrary, it specifically states that you can sell content forever. Neither Facebook, Instagram, or Reddit have such indications.

 

[jlee]

tldr; If you need to spend so much time explaining your Terms of Service so they aren't misinterpreted, rewrite them.