Thanks for the quality reply :) I see where you are coming from, and persoanlly feel that this is a pretty good balance you've struck. Especially as people opt-in to use you in the first place, and get a chance to opt-out of various partner offerings which may stretch things beyond what they are comfortable with.
If I have one remaining concern worth mentioning in relation to all this, its the bit in the relevent part of your terms that, in regard to your partners, says "or for any other non-commercial use of that content." Potentially a lot of your partners dont seem on the face of it to fall into the 'non-commercial' category, and so this may be a weakness in the wording of your terms? Anyway, your overall credibility and ethics are probably more vital to making this acceptable to users in practice, rendering any small quibbles about the legal side of the wording of your t&c less relevant in reality. But I find it important to know how much protection creators are getting via specific legal terms, beforetaking into account the character of those providing the service. eg an evil service could use exactly the same terms&conditions as you, but could stretch things a lot further. Still as you and others have suggested, upsetting lots of people, causing a backlash and damaging own reputation is probably as large or even larger risk factor that may sway companies towards being ethical, than the legal copyright etc details. Wow I seem to have spend most of my time from 8PM till 3AM tonight on this stuff, ugh I think I am some sort of sick obsessive little moneky nerd! :D Quite why Ive probably spent more time on this stuff in the last few years than some content creators or service proviers have, escapes me! Cheers and goodnight all, Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hudack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's a great question. The short answer is that our partnership > agreements may sometimes supercede portions of our terms of service. > The slightly longer short answer is that we don't negotiate partnerships > that violate either the letter or spirit of the TOS. > > I could give you a list of our partners now (it's a long list full of > companies you'll recognize and some you won't) but it may be worthwhile > to note that it's also an ever-increasing list. We aren't standing > still, and any list of partners is likely to get quickly out of date, > unless we maintained it on a daily basis. Even then, we would have to > maintain the list along with everything that we're doing with the > partners and everything we intend to do. Unfortunately most partnership > agreements have at least some confidential aspects since they tend to > cover the future business plans and strategies of both partners. > > The only way that a partner can operate in a way that contradicts our > TOS is for us to explicitly give them permission to do so in a contract. > I hope you'll agree that we're exceedingly unlikely to do this in a way > that impacts our users negatively, and that if we do make that mistake > that we'll pay for it in terms of our reputation when the inevitable > outcry comes our way. > > To be clear, though, we have made some agreements that could have an > impact on the TOS. We've made these agreements with folks like Yahoo to > allow them to spider, index and display blip.tv videos on Yahoo! Video. > The thing is, though, that they respect MediaRSS and the MediaRSS > exclusion standard. So our users can opt out of distribution to Yahoo! > Video at any time if they're unhappy with the way that Yahoo is indexing > or displaying their content. > > There's another class of partner that we have contracts with that may > impact the TOS. These are advertising partners. Many of our > advertising partners subscribe to our RSS feeds and interact with video > in a way that is potentially in violation of our TOS. Using our > advertising partners is always within your control, though, and I'm sure > you'd agree that they should be able to do what they need to do in order > to deliver both you and blip.tv as much money as possible. > > Yours, > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:53 PM > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Defending the Creative Commons license > > > > Can I just clarify a point about whether 'everyone' excludes > > blip.tv and its partners & affiliates? > > > > I mean its normal that whatever license, normal copyright or > > one of the creative commons licenses, a person uses, the > > service such as blip.tv normally requires that users give the > > service additional rights. > > > > So earlier in your terms & conditions it says: > > > > "GRANT OF LICENSE > > > > When you upload or post content to Blip.tv, that content > > become public content and will be searchable by and available > > to anyone who visits the Blip.tv site. Blip.tv does not > > claim ownership of the materials you post, upload, input or > > submit to the Blip.tv site. However, by posting, uploading, > > inputting, providing or submitting your content to Blip.tv, > > you are granting Blip.tv, its affiliated companies and > > partners, a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, > > non-exclusive, sublicensable license to use, reproduce, > > create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, > > publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute and publish > > that content for the purposes of displaying that content on > > Blip.tv or for any other non-commercial use of that content. > > > > In addition, when you upload or post content to the Blip.tv > > site, you grant Blip.tv a license to distribute that content, > > either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to > > download it through the Blip.tv site or for purposes of other > > services provided by Blip.tv and to display such content on > > Blip.tv affiliated sites. This license shall apply to the > > distribution and the storage of your content in any form, > > medium, or technology now known or later developed. " > > > > Now as I said thats fair enough, you couldnt be sure youd > > actually got permission to use the videos people upload to > > you, unless you asked them to grant you these rights. But as > > you also make this sublicensable and applicable to your > > partners and affiliates, I think it would be great to always > > have clarity about who they are. > > > > It also links back to the question of what counts as 'non-commercial' > > activity but I doubt we are going to get away from that grey > > area in a hurry, I think you and many others have behaved > > admirably in this regard so far, just pondering what a less > > scrupulous entity could do after being granted similar rights > > by creators. > > > > See Im thinking, not quite sure, that because creators are > > giving you and your partners these righrts, seperately from > > the license they attach to their work thats valid for > > 'everyone else', that if someone like network2 was considered > > a partner of yours, they might not actually legally have to > > stick to the cc license for the work? > > > > Cheers > > > > Steve Elbows > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Hudack" <mike@> wrote: > > > > > > One thing that we've done almost from Day One is include a > > requirement > > > that everyone accessing blip.tv respect the licenses > > attached to media > > > hosted on blip. The relevant portion of our TOS: > > > > > > All user-generated content will be uploaded onto the site under a > > > Creative Commons License (see > > http://www.creativecommons.org/) or on > > > an all rights reserved basis. You agree to be bound by the > > terms of > > > each license. As a creator of user-generated content or as > > a passive > > > user of the Blip.tv site, you may not modify, publish, transmit, > > > participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create > > derivative > > > works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or in any > > > way exploit any of the content on the Blip.tv site in whole > > or in part > > > outside of the specific usage rights granted to you by each > > license. > > > If you download or print a copy of any Blip.tv content or > > > user-generated content for personal use, you must retain > > all copyright > > > and other proprietary notices contained therein. You may > > not otherwise > > > use, reproduce, display, publicly perform, or distribute > > such content > > > in any way for any public or commercial purpose unless such use is > > > expressly granted by a particular license. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Watkins > > > > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 2:09 PM > > > > To: videoblogging@yahoogroups.com > > > > Subject: [videoblogging] Re: Defending the Creative > > Commons license > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > Woo you;ve got the nice cc license on your work that allows > > > > derivatives, that makes you a hero of mine :) > > > > > > > > Ive been looking at the creative commons site to learn more. > > > > I fear they may not have as much spare resources to help > > us all that > > > > much, or rather they probably need our help in return as > > much as we > > > > need them. > > > > For example I was just looking at a 'podcasting legal guide' > > > > on their site, specifically the 'applying a cc license to your > > > > podcast' section: > > > > > > > > http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Podcasting_Legal_Guide#Applyin > > > > g_A_CC_License_To_Your_Podcast. > > > > > > > > Specifically this bit: > > > > > > > > "Using A Service To Distribute And/Or Promote Your Podcasts. > > > > > > > > We are reviewing "terms of use" agreements offered by > > many podcast > > > > service providers and will update this section of the Guide to > > > > address legal issues related to these "terms of use" > > > > agreements of which podcasters should be especially aware. > > > > > > > > For now, suffice it to say, that before you agree to use any > > > > podcasting services, you should, at a minimum, read the > > provider's > > > > terms of service, privacy policy and copyright policy. > > This ensures, > > > > first, that such policies exist (which can tell you a bit > > about who > > > > you are dealing with), and second, informs you of the terms and > > > > policies to which you may be bound. It is a best practice for > > > > service providers to make these policies clearly > > available through a > > > > link on the service provider's home page, as well as on > > any page on > > > > the website where you sign up for the service. If these > > policies are > > > > not obvious and clearly available, write to the provider > > and ask for > > > > details before you move forward. If the provider is reluctant or > > > > refuses to provide the terms up front, it would be better to hold > > > > off doing business with the provider until their policies are in > > > > order and in writing. " > > > > > > > > I seem to remember reading the same thoing on their site > > some time > > > > ago, so I guess they havent managed to update this yet. > > > > Anyway for most of this stuff I imagine podcasting and > > videoblogging > > > > are very close. So perhaps they need our help with this stuff. > > > > > > > > For example Ive been restating a lot of the basic and > > not-so-basic > > > > creative commons principals etc in recent threads over > > the last day, > > > > have you been looking at that stuff at all? I would > > really love to > > > > get your take on advertising, whether text or graphic advertising > > > > within website pages that may embed your video is ok or > > not, in your > > > > opinion. > > > > We need as many of these opinions as possible, because some are > > > > assuming its ok, its legally not so clear, and it would > > be good to > > > > know what content creators all think about this. > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Steve Elbows > > > > > > > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Casey McKinnon" > > > > <caseymckinnon@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > After the whole MyHeavy debacle, I believe it important to > > > > discuss our > > > > > Creative Commons licenses. I don't believe we need to > > > > change anything > > > > > about the licenses because they are pretty thorough > > > > already, but since > > > > > this is the second (known) time that we have had an issue > > > > with sites > > > > > disregarding our licenses, I think it's important not > > to sweep it > > > > > under the rug too quickly. > > > > > > > > > > I believe our next step should be to reach out to the > > > > Creative Commons > > > > > community and ask them for an opinion and how we should > > > > deal with the > > > > > situation in the future. > > > > > > > > > > The truth of the matter is that most of us do not have the > > > > funds for > > > > > legal representation so we need to figure out what options are > > > > > available from the larger internet community. I have no doubt > > > > > that the good people at Creative Commons have dealt with > > > > > situations like this before and I believe that they may > > have a lot > > > > > to contribute to this discussion. > > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > Casey > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > Casey McKinnon > > > > > Executive Producer, Galacticast > > > > > http://www.galacticast.com/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > >
