OK, I'm gonna do a "bulk reply" here :-) ...
To all of you who agreed we my "they're pirates" interpretation, thanks
for the confirmations. Also, the fact that not one single reply has
offered any alternative interpretation is pretty telling.
> Mike Wilson: "The second sentence has been added ..."
That sounds to my untrained "legal ear" like just the rights they need
to be able to outsource the production of the finished product. The key
part is "for the purposes of delivering the Services."
> John Francis: "Good luck - you'll find a similar clause at many
> web-hosting sites."
My experience has been that most web-hosting and most photo hosting
sites explicitly include something like the "for the purposes of
delivering the Services" to limit the rights they're demanding. Lulu,
Cafe Press, and Blurb, as of about a week ago, go out of their way to
say that they don't even want any rights beyond those necessary to
provide the services. I haven't looked at any others recently.
> Dave Brooks: "I was just about to submit some photos for an LCBO
> photo contest ..."
Yep, I've seen that in quite a few photo "competitions". It leads me to
believe that many of them could be trolling operations to avoid having
to pay stock houses.
> Scott Loveless: "My wife used to be a 'consulatant' ..."
I'll be interested to hear what she finds out. My friend the
"consultant" asked up her "reporting chain" to get the answer I
mentioned before ("it's so they can use your stuff in their promotional
materials without having to track you down and pay you", which is
egregious in and of itself). And that clause in the Snapfish Terms of
Use is why I don't use Snapfish.
> Paul Stenquist: "I would request a separate agreement ..."
Screw 'em. There are other fish in the sea, and I'll spend my money
with them. I'll also take a couple of minutes to send a hand written
letter to the top management of CM to tell them why they won't get my
business, why I'll try to talk my friend into not being a consultant any
more, and why I'll try to talk anyone I can out of using their services.
Commercial value or no, it's the principle of the thing. Like you, I
make my living on IP, though it's software rather than photos and print
copy. This is like an Internet backup service that claimed full rights
to my software because I backed up the source to their service once.
> Bob W: "why bother? If they've written this in such a way that you as
> a normal person can't understand it, ..."
Well, I think I have a pretty good grasp of what it actually says. And
due to what it actually says, I won't use their service. However, I'm
curious. I wonder what they think it means, which will be tough to
tease out. I also wonder what they'll officially claim it means, which
ought to be easer to get from them.
I honestly don't think they're trying to bullshit. The text is pretty
clear. I think they're either stupid or brazen or both. Or they're
planning on the bulk of their customers never reading the terms, or
being too stupid, ignorant, or unimaginative to understand the
implications even if they do read them.
My brother and I are going to race this weekend, and one of the
Scrutineers (technical inspectors) is an IP lawyer. For giggles, I've
printed out the terms and I'm going to see if he'll give an
interpretation, if he's at the track this weekend.
And, all in all, I completely agree with what you said. :-)
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
