|What's the right balance in a copyright license for publishing over "social networks"?||Hugo Roy||6/6/12 9:52 AM|
Obviously one of the most important issues that's addressed in ToS is
the copyright license. Not all services are equal in this regard,
especially between services where the user operate in private and
services where the user shares / publishes content with other people /
with the world.
With this first topic, I'd like to gather some comparative
information and discuss what seems to be a fair balance between
needs to operate the service and rights of the authors & the
public. Then we could try to categorize them and give them a
The first thing to discuss obviously is the scope of the copyright
license. Some of the ToS out there seems to go as far as they can get in
scope. It seems to me that the biggest difference are:
* some ToS don't grant a specifically large license to the
operator of the service but fall back on a copyright public
license e.g. creative commons
* some ToS require the ability to transfer, sublicense with others
(sometimes it is limited to the partners e.g. Twitter Partners)
Do I miss anything substantial?
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).
By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the
Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free
license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce,
process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and
distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution
methods (now known or later developed).
You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to
provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content
submitted to or through the Services available to other
companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter
for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of
such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms
and conditions for such Content use.
By submitting Content to Operator for inclusion on your Website,
you grant all readers the right to use, re-use, modify and/or
re-distribute the Content under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0.
en publiant leurs messages sur Seenthis, les auteurs acceptent :
— que ces messages soient publiés (présentés au public) sur le
— que ces messages soient organisés et enrichis par les
automatismes présents dans le système Seenthis (traduction,
By publishing their messages on Seenthis, the authors agree
- these messages are published (displayed to the public) on the
- these messages are organised and augmented by automatic
systems in Seenthis (translation, taggin...).
Note that SeenThis gives the option when the message is posted to choose
which license (classic copyright, cc-by-sa, and others)
By submitting Content to Automattic for inclusion on your
Website, you grant Automattic a world-wide, royalty-free, and
non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish
the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing
and promoting your blog.
French Coordinator, FSFE chat: hu...@jabber.fsfe.org
www.fsfe.org/about/roy mobile: +336 08 74 13 41
mobile DE: +49 151 143 56 563
|Re: What's the right balance in a copyright license for publishing over "social networks"?||Michiel de Jong||6/6/12 10:12 AM|
this is 'Ownership' on http://tos-dr.info/
i would distinguish three user stories: publishing publicly,
publishing to a limited audience, uploading for private use.
in the first case, obviously you need to grant a license, and i think
it doesn't matter if this is transferrable or creative commons - it is
understood that what you publish will be public. i would give points
to websites that make it clear that something will be public. some
have a warning saying "watch out: public means public!"
in the second case, the site should only get a license to publish the
content to the intended audience, plus sysadmin access. any secondary
data that is generated should only be used for product improvement and
not for advertising, and definitely not for profiling.
additionally, the site will disclose your data to the police whenever
required to do so by law, but i don't think they need to put that
explicitly in the ToS, do they? i think they should get points if they
point this out to you, and also if they warn you whenever this happens
(this is point 'law enforcement').
in the third case, it's the same as the second case, except that the
intended audience is just you.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Terms of Service; Didn't Read" group.
> To post to this group, send email to to...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tosdr+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tosdr?hl=en.
|Re: What's the right balance in a copyright license for publishing over "social networks"?||Hugo Roy||6/6/12 10:38 AM|
Le mercredi 06 juin 2012 à 19:12 +0200, Michiel de Jong a écrit :Right, it also touches upon the relationship w/ 3rd parties.
So what about a case where for instance on SeenThis you can publish
under a CC-non commercial license, or a non-derivative? Compare that to
Twitter which gets granted more rights, including to display on /all/
media (so typically outside twitter.com, even on paper).
I personally like the CC approach better, especially when it's
advertised clearly. That way the user is aware quite clearly of the
copyright license that's applying to uploaded content. Also, the
operator and other people are treated equally.
I'm not sure that all users of Facebook realise that uploading a picture
equals granting a very, very broad copyright license (provided that the
ToS copyright license clause is valid and enforceable). IMHO that's not
particularly required for a "social network" or even for publication.
Then what about ToS that govern several of the use-cases you describe.
Wordpress.com in contrast to Facebook, is limited to the first case you
describe. In that case, they precise that the copyright license is
limited to Automattic (nothing about transfert AFAIK) and operates
"solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting yourblog." That makes a big difference IMO.
I agree but that's typically not reflected in most ToS. Hard to keep
track of this equally for all services.
Yes, I don't think the government asks for a copyright license to access
Yes, I agree. That's for another topic though.
|Re: What's the right balance in a copyright license for publishing over "social networks"?||Michiel de Jong||6/6/12 10:59 AM|
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Hugo Roy <hu...@fsfe.org> wrote:i think we would have to put that in context and try to relate it to
the user story. For a tweet, derivatives don't make much sense,
although i heard of a case where if you mention a brand, that brand
then gets advertised to your friends with your photo in the ad. that
would be a commercial derivative i guess. :)
is a quote a derivative? is this email, quoting the text from your
email, a derivative of it? i guess so. you could now probably sue me
because i'm reusing unlicensed material. ;)
non-commercial sounds reasonable for derivatives (e.g. someone
compiles a book of your tweets and gets rich) but not for the original
published context, it is quite widely accepted that the site may
display ads on the same page, and that would violate a non-commercial
so my conclusion would be:
- if the service does not display ads, then that's a plus, but that's
then probably for the whole service, and doesn't seem to be a feature
of the content licensing, more of the service's mission statement
- commercial derivatives should not be allowed i think
that's definitely a good thing, and that's obviously why identica
chose it, and i think that should be rewarded.
the problem there is that the license is granted at the moment of
uploading, and unlike twitter, uploading to facebook is not publishing
publicly. what license does twitter get over direct messages?
yes, that's how it should be, right? i don't understand why it's so
hard for other services to get that right ;)
well, there is documented evidence of user studies about oversharing
on facebook. it is misleading on purpose. we should quote that
research, and penalize facebook for it.
|Re: What's the right balance in a copyright license for publishing over "social networks"?||Hugo Roy||6/19/12 10:32 AM|
|Re: What's the right balance in a copyright license for publishing over "social networks"?||yu.p...@gmail.com||6/8/15 7:04 AM|
question: if you share a link of original material from soundcloud to facebook, does one default to the ToS of soundcloud? or does facebook abide by its own agreement w/regards to that posted content? i would figure you'd default to soundcloud since the audio is uploaded to that site, not facebook.