![[Valid RSS]](/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
I’m a bit hesitant to write this post, because I don’t want to come off as sounding negative. But, BOY have I been running into this issue of late. And I feel compelled to offer up a friendly warning to my friends in craft.
So, the chain of events that led me here:
I got an email from Sharpie. They’re developing a new website, and they wanted to link to this post of mine on it. However, they attached a Submission License agreement to their email. It contained this language:
“You hereby grant Sanford Corporation the following rights: (a) An irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free perpetual license to use and exploit the Submission, including, without limitation, the title(s) and each and every element of the Submission, in whole or in part, in any and all manner and media throughout the
world; and (b) The right to use your name, voice, image, likeness and biographical data in connection with both the Submission and the Promotion, including, without
limitation, in credits, advertising, publicity, promotional and marketing materials. 2. You hereby acknowledge and agree that: (a) Sanford Corporation shall have the right to crop, edit, alter or arrange the Submission in any way it desires in Sanford Corporation’s sole discretion; (b) Sanford Corporation shall not have any obligation to provide you with any credit when using your Submission, but in the event Sanford Corporation chooses to provide you with credit the size and placement of the credit shall be at Sanford Corporation’s sole discretion…”
Ouch! I politely declined the opportunity to be linked. Although, for the record, you have to give Sharpie some props for at least being up-front about their terms of use.
Fast forward a couple weeks. I noticed that CraftBlips.com was picking up my blog feed and putting summaries and links to my posts on its website. I always wish that a craft portal website would ask my permission before they do this, but that rarely happens. You can’t argue with increased exposure, of course. I just dig the courtesy.
Anyway, later I became aware of their Terms of Use, which state:
“…You agree that by posting messages, uploading files, inputting data, or engaging in any other form of communication with or through the Site, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive, unrestricted, worldwide license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, enhance, transmit, distribute, publicly perform, display, or sublicense any such communication in any medium (now in existence or hereinafter developed) and for any purpose, including commercial purposes, and to authorize others to do so. You acknowledge that you are responsible for whatever material you submit, and you, not us, have full responsibility for the message, including its legality, reliability, appropriateness, originality, and copyright.”
Again, Ouch. It bewilders me that any corporate entity would take content they are not paying people for and exercise this kind of control over it.
For the record, the folks at CraftBlips were very responsive and open to my feedback. They explained to me that those ownership rights were only applied to content people post to the site, not to feeds they picked up.
Still, I asked them to remove my content from the site.
And then lastly, my mother had an email from FaveCrafts.com, a website that portals a variety of free projects. They wanted her to submit a project to the website.
Terms of Service say:
“By sending or transmitting to us creative suggestions, ideas, notes, concepts, information, or other materials (collectively, ” Submission Materials”) or by posting such Submission Materials on the Sites, you hereby grant to us and our designees a worldwide, non-exclusive, sub licensable (through multiple tiers), assignable, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right to use, reproduce, distribute (through multiple tiers), create derivative works of, publicly perform, publicly display, digitally perform, make, have made, sell, offer for sale and import such Submission Materials in any media now known or hereafter devised, for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to you, the provider of the Submission Materials. The foregoing license to PPL shall be fully paid-up and royalty free. In addition, under no circumstances shall PPL have any obligation whatsoever to pay a fee to any subscriber or user in connection with the Submission Materials upon the occurrence of a transfer of all or any portion of PPL’s business through a merger, sale or transfer of all or substantially all of the assets of PPL, nor shall the sale of advertising on any of the Sites give rise to any obligation to pay a fee to Subscribers.”
So, I advised her against.
I’m not an attorney. I’m willing to concede that portal websites may need strong legal language like this to protect themselves. What dismays me, again, is that these websites are making use of people’s content, not paying them, and then using it for commercial gain. So having them also assert these Draconian rights of ownership seems to add insult to injury.
I’d like to believe that the legal language could be written to better protect both the company and the crafter.
You do good work. You deserve to own it and decide how it’s used. But yes – when you’re building your audience online, it can be a boon to have your work featured on a large corporate website – and I’ve certainly considered it a boon many times in my crafting career.
So, I am not advising you to keep your work off corporate sites. Just promise me that when an opportunity arises, you’ll take a moment to read the Terms of Service before you agree. And think long and hard about whether the work you’re submitting is something you’re willing to release completely.
And if you don’t agree with a company’s TOS, consider speaking up. None of this changes unless we resist.
Great article, Diane. I don’t think people even read the Terms of Use on websites and some of them are scary.
Great article, Diane. I don’t think people even read the Terms of Use on websites and some of them are scary.
Interesting. I honestly can’t say I’ve ever read those TOS before. I went to the Sharpie site and those TOS go on and on; giving no rights at all to the artist. Thank you for sharing this and maybe we’ll all be a little bit wiser now and in the future with where we share our art.
Interesting. I honestly can’t say I’ve ever read those TOS before. I went to the Sharpie site and those TOS go on and on; giving no rights at all to the artist. Thank you for sharing this and maybe we’ll all be a little bit wiser now and in the future with where we share our art.
Nice! Good advice. I did post something on FaveCrafts and it’s been fine, but as more and more entities feel the pinch of the down economy, there’s going to be more and more people looking for free content. Read those TOS agreements, people!
Nice! Good advice. I did post something on FaveCrafts and it’s been fine, but as more and more entities feel the pinch of the down economy, there’s going to be more and more people looking for free content. Read those TOS agreements, people!
Thanks for posting about this! I often glaze over when reading TOS, but it’s a great reminder to pay more attention.
Thanks for posting about this! I often glaze over when reading TOS, but it’s a great reminder to pay more attention.
Sounds like they all have the same legal service and/or attorney.
Those portal sites tick me off anyway. They use other peoples work to get traffic, yet generated next to no content of their own.
I’ve come across some site that out and out steal content, put their logo on it and threaten legal action if you reuse “their” content.
Sounds like they all have the same legal service and/or attorney.
Those portal sites tick me off anyway. They use other peoples work to get traffic, yet generated next to no content of their own.
I’ve come across some site that out and out steal content, put their logo on it and threaten legal action if you reuse “their” content.
This is such great information. I’ll admit I’ve been guilty of writing up tutes for sites and never even looking at the TOS. I’ll be paying more attention from now on! Thanks so much for writing this, I’ll be linking.
This is such great information. I’ll admit I’ve been guilty of writing up tutes for sites and never even looking at the TOS. I’ll be paying more attention from now on! Thanks so much for writing this, I’ll be linking.
yes! i feel more artists need to notice and refuse these terms of service — or at least, choose carefully what they want licensed under those terms. more importantly, i think companies that benefit from the material of others need to compensate them fairly for it.
yes! i feel more artists need to notice and refuse these terms of service — or at least, choose carefully what they want licensed under those terms. more importantly, i think companies that benefit from the material of others need to compensate them fairly for it.
Thanks for this post!!
Thanks for this post!!
Wow, that is amazing—It’s sounds kind of like the legalese version of a kid’s saying “I call, finder’s keeper’s, No Backsies!” But does their saying it make so? Are these TofSs actually enforceable? Have they exercised these rights they claim so boldly? I’d love to learn more about this.
Wow, that is amazing—It’s sounds kind of like the legalese version of a kid’s saying “I call, finder’s keeper’s, No Backsies!” But does their saying it make so? Are these TofSs actually enforceable? Have they exercised these rights they claim so boldly? I’d love to learn more about this.
Good for you! Its time we crafters stand up and say that what we do is valuble.
Good for you! Its time we crafters stand up and say that what we do is valuble.
Thank you for a very well written, thought provoking article that is not in the least bit negative. You challenge the indie craft community to take ourselves seriously as creatives/creators. You are helping us move forward and prove we are not a fad, but a movement.
Thank you for a very well written, thought provoking article that is not in the least bit negative. You challenge the indie craft community to take ourselves seriously as creatives/creators. You are helping us move forward and prove we are not a fad, but a movement.
Very important news Sister Diane, well english is not my native language but dear …those TOS sound rude and a bit over the top. Thanks for the advice.
Very important news Sister Diane, well english is not my native language but dear …those TOS sound rude and a bit over the top. Thanks for the advice.
Yes yes yes. We need to be smart. Thank you for pointing that out.
Yes yes yes. We need to be smart. Thank you for pointing that out.
Thank you for posting your thoughts and the TOS. I had no clue this was going on. I do believe these companies are using out of date business practices. It seems they don’t understand the new web of social media connections and, unfortunately, they may never understand it.
Maybe with posts like yours, they might decide to change course and help, instead of hinder, the crafting community.
Lydia
Thank you for posting your thoughts and the TOS. I had no clue this was going on. I do believe these companies are using out of date business practices. It seems they don’t understand the new web of social media connections and, unfortunately, they may never understand it.
Maybe with posts like yours, they might decide to change course and help, instead of hinder, the crafting community.
Lydia
Bravo!
Bravo!
It is such a struggle as an artist to battle this stuff. Exposure versus rights, which shouldn’t have to be compromised at all! I have not sold craft online in a very long time, but the issues are very much the same in the dance world as well. YouTube, Vimeo and Facebook are helping to grow many smaller dance companies’ audiences to a national and international level, when once their reach was only regional. Copyrighting dance is a very touchy area…and it’s very difficult to protect yourself. I think that it’s a lot easier to copy a craft product than a dance, however I can’t imagine waking up one day and seeing my dances in a Facebook or Gap commercial…ick.
Thanks for the thought provoking post!
It is such a struggle as an artist to battle this stuff. Exposure versus rights, which shouldn’t have to be compromised at all! I have not sold craft online in a very long time, but the issues are very much the same in the dance world as well. YouTube, Vimeo and Facebook are helping to grow many smaller dance companies’ audiences to a national and international level, when once their reach was only regional. Copyrighting dance is a very touchy area…and it’s very difficult to protect yourself. I think that it’s a lot easier to copy a craft product than a dance, however I can’t imagine waking up one day and seeing my dances in a Facebook or Gap commercial…ick.
Thanks for the thought provoking post!
There have been a number of craft-related social network sites that I have either not participated in at all or limited it to links only back to my content because of their terms of use. I get that to a certain extend they need to say something, but it is too broad. For example, on About.com’s forum, when you joins there’s a user agreement that says something similar to what you’re talking about. However, this is done so that they can legally keep what you say on the forum “on” the forum and I can link to it in newsletters or mention it in my blog or whatever. But when it comes to sites wanting designers to post projects and then claim the site then owns that content, that’s just too much. I suspect many people who participate in those sites have no idea what they are giving up.
There have been a number of craft-related social network sites that I have either not participated in at all or limited it to links only back to my content because of their terms of use. I get that to a certain extend they need to say something, but it is too broad. For example, on About.com’s forum, when you joins there’s a user agreement that says something similar to what you’re talking about. However, this is done so that they can legally keep what you say on the forum “on” the forum and I can link to it in newsletters or mention it in my blog or whatever. But when it comes to sites wanting designers to post projects and then claim the site then owns that content, that’s just too much. I suspect many people who participate in those sites have no idea what they are giving up.
What a crock! (Not you of course, my dear, THEM.)
There are many a day when I thank my stars I am small and obscure. But, I promise if any person with a TOS comes knocking on my door I will read it and consider it deeply.
What a crock! (Not you of course, my dear, THEM.)
There are many a day when I thank my stars I am small and obscure. But, I promise if any person with a TOS comes knocking on my door I will read it and consider it deeply.
good gracious! thanks so much for posting this. reading that fine print is oh, so important!!
good gracious! thanks so much for posting this. reading that fine print is oh, so important!!
Of all the words in those overly protective TOUs and TOSs, the one that I get most bent about is irrevocable. Why would it be so awful to allow an artist the opportunity to say, hey I don’t want you to this with my work? Also, it should not be blanket to all content, but piece by piece. Hurrahs to you for bringing up and repeating this issue, it’s important and won’t change unless these sites run out of people who will stand for those terms.
Of all the words in those overly protective TOUs and TOSs, the one that I get most bent about is irrevocable. Why would it be so awful to allow an artist the opportunity to say, hey I don’t want you to this with my work? Also, it should not be blanket to all content, but piece by piece. Hurrahs to you for bringing up and repeating this issue, it’s important and won’t change unless these sites run out of people who will stand for those terms.
Great Post! I saw a comment from Felicity asking if these types of TOS are even enforceable and the answer is you betcha!!!! They are totally enforceable- and give all the advantage to the company who’s policy this is.
Intellectual Property (IP)- which is what you are agreeing to license (or rather giveaway in these examples) can be a very valuable thing- please for your own sake know what you are agreeing to. If you choose to trade shared ownership of your IP for publicity and more traffic thats fine… just understand that this is a totally one way agreement. It is a non-revocable, perpetual, shared ownership to the rights of not only the original content but also the your name and any derivative work the company makes that is based on your idea.
Just think- by agreeing to any of the examples in this post if Diane became the next crafting superstar who’s TV show millions watch and had a magazine of her own- she could also (through no decision of her own) become the next celebrity spokesperson for sharpie. They could use her name, article and projects however they wanted absolutely free and she wouldn’t even have any say in how they used it.
When there is money being exchanged and both parties are experience in making licensing deals these agreements are much more fair. All of these companies could still protect themselves from lawsuits while having licensing policies that are fair to both parties.
Great Post! I saw a comment from Felicity asking if these types of TOS are even enforceable and the answer is you betcha!!!! They are totally enforceable- and give all the advantage to the company who’s policy this is.
Intellectual Property (IP)- which is what you are agreeing to license (or rather giveaway in these examples) can be a very valuable thing- please for your own sake know what you are agreeing to. If you choose to trade shared ownership of your IP for publicity and more traffic thats fine… just understand that this is a totally one way agreement. It is a non-revocable, perpetual, shared ownership to the rights of not only the original content but also the your name and any derivative work the company makes that is based on your idea.
Just think- by agreeing to any of the examples in this post if Diane became the next crafting superstar who’s TV show millions watch and had a magazine of her own- she could also (through no decision of her own) become the next celebrity spokesperson for sharpie. They could use her name, article and projects however they wanted absolutely free and she wouldn’t even have any say in how they used it.
When there is money being exchanged and both parties are experience in making licensing deals these agreements are much more fair. All of these companies could still protect themselves from lawsuits while having licensing policies that are fair to both parties.
Those contracts are totally ridiculous, unfair, and overly restrictive. Ugh! Have considered using a Creative Commons license for your blog? It’s worth checking out their site–they have a lot of information about different ways to handle the reuse and sharing of your work.
http://creativecommons.org/
Those contracts are totally ridiculous, unfair, and overly restrictive. Ugh! Have considered using a Creative Commons license for your blog? It’s worth checking out their site–they have a lot of information about different ways to handle the reuse and sharing of your work.
http://creativecommons.org/
Having just returned home, I am a couple days behind. And I can’t add much to your excellent content or the thoughtful comments this post elicited from the craft world. But coming from an industry (photography) plagued by the copyright issue for nearly a century, I can totally relate. Every single time a person copies a photograph taken by a professional photographer, they are basically stealing artistic content and totally disrespecting the rights of the artist. There are now layers and layers and layers of legalities in place designed to protect both the photographers and those wishing to use their work for commercial or personal gain.
In a perfect world, we could all share content with each other with the understanding and assurance that it would be treated with respect and not resold as one’s own or for commercial gain. WE DON’T LIVE IN THAT WORLD. Jackie is absolutely right – the terms written in the TOS described above are overly restrictive. But the problem is only going to get worse without, sadly, an organized effort on the part of crafters to create their own set of rules for use of their artistic material.
Since that hasn’t happened yet (and many of us don’t want to have to move in that direction) I think Malla made an excellent observation when she pointed out that perhaps these self serving, abusive sites would “get the point” if they were to run out of craft artists willing to accept their outrageous terms. And, I might add, they might get the point if their readership and product sales declined. Crafter artists may not have a huge, legally savvy organization behind them, but they do have the power of the internet and it’s opportunity for broad communication. Perhaps we should all take it upon ourselves to follow Diane’s lead and at the very least pass this information on, exposing the sites that are exploiting craft artists and promoting those that respect artistic ownership and rights.
Having just returned home, I am a couple days behind. And I can’t add much to your excellent content or the thoughtful comments this post elicited from the craft world. But coming from an industry (photography) plagued by the copyright issue for nearly a century, I can totally relate. Every single time a person copies a photograph taken by a professional photographer, they are basically stealing artistic content and totally disrespecting the rights of the artist. There are now layers and layers and layers of legalities in place designed to protect both the photographers and those wishing to use their work for commercial or personal gain.
In a perfect world, we could all share content with each other with the understanding and assurance that it would be treated with respect and not resold as one’s own or for commercial gain. WE DON’T LIVE IN THAT WORLD. Jackie is absolutely right – the terms written in the TOS described above are overly restrictive. But the problem is only going to get worse without, sadly, an organized effort on the part of crafters to create their own set of rules for use of their artistic material.
Since that hasn’t happened yet (and many of us don’t want to have to move in that direction) I think Malla made an excellent observation when she pointed out that perhaps these self serving, abusive sites would “get the point” if they were to run out of craft artists willing to accept their outrageous terms. And, I might add, they might get the point if their readership and product sales declined. Crafter artists may not have a huge, legally savvy organization behind them, but they do have the power of the internet and it’s opportunity for broad communication. Perhaps we should all take it upon ourselves to follow Diane’s lead and at the very least pass this information on, exposing the sites that are exploiting craft artists and promoting those that respect artistic ownership and rights.
People get so excited about being approached by companies like this, that they don’t even consider that it might not be beneficial to submit their material. Exposure can be good, but giving up your claim to your work isn’t giving you exposure, it’s giving the other company exposure and they’re not giving you any credit for it. At the very least, your work should be credited, and ideally you should be receiving royalties when it is used.
People get so excited about being approached by companies like this, that they don’t even consider that it might not be beneficial to submit their material. Exposure can be good, but giving up your claim to your work isn’t giving you exposure, it’s giving the other company exposure and they’re not giving you any credit for it. At the very least, your work should be credited, and ideally you should be receiving royalties when it is used.
a very good post to write. the part that fries me the most in the tos for sharpie is them not giving credit to the original creator. personally, i would be willing to share some portion of what i make for free for the return benefit of getting my name out there to (hopefully) bring in paying customers. however, not even giving someone credit for their work is just plain gross and shows a lack of common decency.
I agree with your post. I don’t think you sound negative. You sound like you’re actually thinking before you post. What you say is true. How can they ask for all these rights to your content without offering to compensate you? It’s good that you brought this up. The companies rely on the fact that most of us don’t read the TOS agreements. It is surely possible to re-work them to make them fairer. Have you seen any TOS agreements that you like?