To my new OS pals:
When I signed up for OS, I didn't read the Terms of Service (TOS), but my friend Joe did and alerted me promptly. The language is downright scary! It basically says that everything we write is automatically licensed to OS, which OS can use as it sees fit, without pay and in perpetuity.
I've written so many essays about chronic pain on Blogger/OS that I could envision them as a collection at some point down the road. Am I shooting myself in the foot by posting to OS? The TOS language is so vast, encompasses so much, that I wonder what future repercussions could be.
Let's say someone here becomes a famous novelist. Technically, OS would have the rights to use their blog in ways the novelist could never imagine and might not ever ordinarily agree to.
I'd hate to leave OS, or curtail my writings (they're what's giving meaning to my pain experience these days), but the TOS language is pretty freaky (particularly certain paragraphs in #7).
This link below is to a recent discussion on Dynomyte's blog about the matter. Any opinions?
http://open.salon.com/blog/dynomyte/2009/02/06/an_open_blog_on_being_open_on_open_salon_and_the_tos
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Christopher di Spirito
Nikki Stern
O'Really?
Dave Cullen
Jocelyn Testes-Harder
Polly Endicott
Salon.com
Comments
I'm going to keep writing and posting here.
I suggest caution and common sense. Personal and legal opinions offered here in comment are one thing, but the TOS is the bottom line.
I don't like the wording of the TOS but something similar is pretty common on any site that you write on. Facebook recently said that if you pull your stuff from there then it is gone and they can no longer use it.
That is NOT the case here or on a lot of other writing sites. Here you own it but even if you pull all of your stuff they can use anything in the archive exactly as if you posted it today. They don't "throw away" your work, they store it.
I am not concerned because I am not trying to write The Great American Novel or anything like that. And even if I were, I am not sure that the publicity I might get, for example, by OS bragging that they "discovered" me, or them posting something about my "early works" would be harmful. It likely would enhance my reputation.
All I can say is that if you want to post something you need to think about the TOS and then do or don't post it depending on your risk level.
Monte
"By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying and distributing Google services."
I'd be more concerned with the position of most editors - many won't consider content that has already been "published" - and that includes blog content.
:)
""""Your Intellectual Property Rights. Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Google services and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying and distributing Google services. Google furthermore reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion.""""""
Source: Google Blogger TOS
http://www.blogger.com/terms.g
That language is very different from OS TOS, where their language is far more sweeping, suggesting that they might do anthologies of OS in the future, which gets into publishing.
Google's language puts me at ease because it's so specific. OS's language, though, is spooky.
More often I wonder if my material is even worth reading and I'm ecstatic when someone posts a comment on my blog.
Mostly I hope I am an evolving human and anything I write tomorrow will be better than what I posted today meaning that if my current writing was ever used without my essential consent, honestly, I'd be flattered and then probably motivated to knock out something better!
Of course, what's to say that Google couldn't publish an anthology of content published on their sites to promote Google? As long as the anthology was branded with "Google" it would follow their TOS. I'm not saying they would do that, I'm just saying that even with their TOS language, it allows for that kind of user loop hole.
Cap'n--Arghhhhh, yes matey--run 'em through!
And One--you're welcome! Again thanks to all for contributing to this discussion.