4 ms·
This is exactly like the broadly misunderstood TOS for Facebook, Etsy and other services. They need a license to your work in order to distribute it, and displ
by code_duck 15y ago
This is exactly like the broadly misunderstood TOS for Facebook, Etsy and other services.
They need a license to your work in order to distribute it, and display it to others or perhaps even you.
These clauses have been in TOSs for years and years, and only now people have taken notice. The average person doesn't know much about IP though, and probably couldn't tell you the difference between a copyright and a patent.
Companies sometimes do overreach in this step though, conveniently claiming rights to use your images royalty-free in advertisements for the service and around their site without you being involved. It's important for people to know what they're signing over, and perhaps it is more than necessary or intended in some cases. However, the mere notice that you are extending a copyright license to a company to whom you are uploading media is not in itself suspicious, unusual or an attempt to take rights from you.
- cma 15y agoJust because it is standard doesn't mean it is acceptable.
- JonnieCache 15y agoIt is standard because there is no other choice if you want to provide services of this nature. Blame the law, not the service providers.
- matwood 15y agoCould it be worded in such a way that makes the rights granted to Dropbox only usable for making Dropbox functional?
- branden 15y ago"...to the extent we think it necessary for the Service."
- JonnieCache 15y agoPossibly. Due to the fact that we are dealing with spoken language, even if it is legalese, there will always be some degree of ambiguity and room for interpretation. Here, that ambiguity lies in the phrase "we think is necessary." Therefore there will always be a tiny chance left for one party to get bitten in the ass down the line. The company has to decide if its them or you that is exposed to that slight risk. Good luck finding a company that picks them rather than you. Rereading, I realise that I haven't been entirely clear. I hope you get the idea. IANAL.
- jws 15y agoThat's why the sentence ends … to the extent we think it necessary for the Service.
- code_duck 15y agoLooks like HN has another part of IP law to dislike. If service providers didn't secure a license from the uploader/creator of a work, this could happen: - Jim McJones uploads his photo to flickr - flickr displays his image to the public - Jim McJones sends flickr a cease and desist or sues for copyright infringement Which leads to... huh? Obviously the intent when you upload a photo to flickr is to have them display it for you. But they need a license, and since this is a legal issue, it needs to be written in a legally specific way. Thus, that's what everyone has done. DropBox's clause relating to this was already decent and fair in my opinion. Of course, I am not a lawyer or legal expert, just someone who both creates content and runs websites which distribute other peoples' works.