3 ms·
There are a number of sites that are mostly useless in Google results. Perhaps a larger issue is that any company that solicits public data input be required to
by dreamcompiler 7y ago
There are a number of sites that are mostly useless in Google results. Perhaps a larger issue is that any company that solicits public data input be required to sign an ironclad agreement with me that my content is under my copyright and if they ever try to monetize my content they share any revenues with me. Otherwise they get class-action sued into oblivion.
- rednixion 7y agoUsers giving non-exclusive royalty free rights to the content and for the site to use it however they see fit being in the ToS is pretty standard(especially for comment based data)... Not sure how you are expecting sites that are driven by the userbase to exist since your phrasing sounds like you believe providing all of the infrastructure, management and marketing for information isn't enough to morally receive payment for that information.
- dmurray 7y agoThe legal situation is rosier than you think. What you demand is already the case: content you create is copyrighted by you and can't be relicensed by anyone else without your permission. All without any agreements at all! Now, it would be tyrannical not to give you any way to transfer rights to your creative output. So some publishers do allow you to agree to a Terms And Conditions waiving certain of these rights, or transferring them to said publishers. It goes without saying that no one would ever compel you to agree to such conditions, but some publishers might not agree to publish your work without such an agreement.