people.tribe.net/mike_c/bl...b22edda457
This blog entry is going through revisions as the debate rages. If some of it has the feel of being incomplete -- you're right.
The source of all the trouble resides in changes to the wording of Paragraph 5 of the Tribe 'Terms of Use' (TOU), revised 12/20/05
>>We do not claim ownership of the content you post or otherwise provide to the Service.
However, you hereby grant, and agree to grant as an effect of posting or otherwise providing content, the following license: to the public, a license for personal non-commercial use; and to Tribe, a perpetual license to use, copy, distribute, display, perform, and modify any and all content that you post on the Service.
You represent and warrant that you have not granted and will not grant any rights inconsistent with this license."
So now that tribe has reorganized the TOU, one has to start to wonder how ownership is redefined according to the contract, or more succinctly: what is ownership worth? From this, it is simply that ownership is only worth the amount of effort which you put in to defend it.
The artist won't defend it. If they do, they are no longer an artist as inspiration becomes tied up with struggle. Art becomes conflict. The only way to properly defend against the policy is to withdraw from the forum.
Will this reveal what is missing from Tribe. Probably not immediatly. In the long run -- perhaps.
As a small effort, before redundancy takes over, I should say that there are several problems with this clause in the TOU (besides the fact that it will keep artists and writers from advertising their work).
Some of the loopholes I have found in the contract.
1. Any alt can come on in and post work that may be copyrighted and anyone on Tribe Inc. can come in here and capitalize on 'modifying or performing' said work -- all without the say of the original author until that author discovers said content in a commercial or the cineplex. The way the clause is worded, any fool or script reader in Hollywood can post copyrighted material through tribe as a way to launder content and liability.
2. The clause needs to have a 'specific date' on it so that material posted before it went into effect has 'grandfathered' protection from modification or performance. Tribe members, alts or agents of tribe members must have the right to delete any posts or halt usage on materials submitted prior to the change in TOU, otherwise Tribe Inc. is opening itself to all sorts of potential liability.
3. Rights to distribute should be electronic rights only since this is the medium that Tribe currently uses. All other forms should be off limits. Also postings should be given 'one time rights' only with the content reverting back to author once the post is made.
These three are suggested to limit the liability and potential lawsuits that Tribe may receive in modifying or performing (ie. using) copyrighted material. All of these potential situations should be taken into account when you revise Paragraph 5. A possible schematic to look into can be found here if you're looking for a base (for tribe or your own website).
creativecommons.org/text/
In the meantime, it's best to stay informed of changes at Tribe and make sure all bases are covered. If you have work posted in Tribe that you want to retain ownership on, it's best that you remove the content. If the work is hidden within threads, talk to the moderator of the tribe and odds are they will remove it.
If you aren't up to date, the odds are you might be in for a rude awakening.
This blog entry is going through revisions as the debate rages. If some of it has the feel of being incomplete -- you're right.
The source of all the trouble resides in changes to the wording of Paragraph 5 of the Tribe 'Terms of Use' (TOU), revised 12/20/05
>>We do not claim ownership of the content you post or otherwise provide to the Service.
However, you hereby grant, and agree to grant as an effect of posting or otherwise providing content, the following license: to the public, a license for personal non-commercial use; and to Tribe, a perpetual license to use, copy, distribute, display, perform, and modify any and all content that you post on the Service.
You represent and warrant that you have not granted and will not grant any rights inconsistent with this license."
So now that tribe has reorganized the TOU, one has to start to wonder how ownership is redefined according to the contract, or more succinctly: what is ownership worth? From this, it is simply that ownership is only worth the amount of effort which you put in to defend it.
The artist won't defend it. If they do, they are no longer an artist as inspiration becomes tied up with struggle. Art becomes conflict. The only way to properly defend against the policy is to withdraw from the forum.
Will this reveal what is missing from Tribe. Probably not immediatly. In the long run -- perhaps.
As a small effort, before redundancy takes over, I should say that there are several problems with this clause in the TOU (besides the fact that it will keep artists and writers from advertising their work).
Some of the loopholes I have found in the contract.
1. Any alt can come on in and post work that may be copyrighted and anyone on Tribe Inc. can come in here and capitalize on 'modifying or performing' said work -- all without the say of the original author until that author discovers said content in a commercial or the cineplex. The way the clause is worded, any fool or script reader in Hollywood can post copyrighted material through tribe as a way to launder content and liability.
2. The clause needs to have a 'specific date' on it so that material posted before it went into effect has 'grandfathered' protection from modification or performance. Tribe members, alts or agents of tribe members must have the right to delete any posts or halt usage on materials submitted prior to the change in TOU, otherwise Tribe Inc. is opening itself to all sorts of potential liability.
3. Rights to distribute should be electronic rights only since this is the medium that Tribe currently uses. All other forms should be off limits. Also postings should be given 'one time rights' only with the content reverting back to author once the post is made.
These three are suggested to limit the liability and potential lawsuits that Tribe may receive in modifying or performing (ie. using) copyrighted material. All of these potential situations should be taken into account when you revise Paragraph 5. A possible schematic to look into can be found here if you're looking for a base (for tribe or your own website).
creativecommons.org/text/
In the meantime, it's best to stay informed of changes at Tribe and make sure all bases are covered. If you have work posted in Tribe that you want to retain ownership on, it's best that you remove the content. If the work is hidden within threads, talk to the moderator of the tribe and odds are they will remove it.
If you aren't up to date, the odds are you might be in for a rude awakening.
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
