Warning: new FARK copyright policy steals your copyright

[monkeybort]

thread – http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=2765042 (TF only, sorry)

[schnee]

Here’s the exchange I had with Drew way back when. He even gave me permission to reprint:

from		Drew Curtis 

to		schneeman 

cc		legal@fark.com

date		May 19, 2006 12:21 PM

subject		Re: FARK : Legal Question from schneeman (198.241.156.7)

mailed-by		fark.com



nope.  We request a non-exclusive right to republish but we don't ask for

ownership



the language is strong because the attorneys like that way, however I'll

go on record as saying I'm never going to claim we own those



On Fri, 19 May 2006, schneeman wrote:



> Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 12:27:10 -0400 (EDT)

> From: schneeman 

> To: drew@fark.com, legal@fark.com

> Subject: FARK : Legal Question from schneeman (198.241.156.7)

>

> The following was submitted:

>

> Login   : schnee (140281)

> Name    : schneeman 

> Type    : (legal) Legal question

>

>

> The Fark copyright policy seems to indicate that when someone posts an entry in a Farktography contest, the copyright of that image is transferred to Fark. Is that the intent? If I stamp "Copyright (c) 2006 Brent Schneeman" on an image and then enter it in a Farktography contest, do I retain the copyright or have I assigned the copyright of the image to Fark? What if I don't put the stamp?

His intent and the actual wording seem a bit out-of-phase, but I’m not a lawyer.

[linguine]

If they dont change the copyright policy wouldnt submitting a blurry version of the picture that links to the real version get around this because you would only be giving fark copyright over the blurry version. Although I hope that people dont have to start doing this because it wouldnt be much fun click on every entry. Also couldnt the fact that they let elsinore post in the boobies each week saying that the photographer is the legal copyright holder make it a little harder for them to claim copyright of the images.

[Elsinore]

Also couldnt the fact that they let elsinore post in the boobies each week saying that the photographer is the legal copyright holder make it a little harder for them to claim copyright of the images.

I’ve suspected for awhile that this might be our out as it shows that their intent is not to claim ownership. But I think a lot of people (myself included) would be more comfortable if the verbiage was clarified for all parties.

[Elsinore]

Oh hey, I just saw that link–thanks monkeybort!

[mikemikeb]

Thanks for the tip, chakalakasp.

The legal page was last updated on Feb. 12 [EDIT: This was based on what I saw when I read the legal page a few hours ago, and saw it on the bottom of the page — that part has been taken down], so if anybody’s posted a good Farktography entry since then, they might as well enter it in the “Happy Farktography Anniversary” contest on May 9, as since Fark seems to have full copyright to those photos, anyway, reposting won’t affect anything. Otherwise, until this policy is changed for the better, it looks like that contest will be my swansong if things don’t change…

I’ve found an interesting conundrum for Drew and his lawyers. Let’s say that I host an image on putfile.com, which, last I checked, has a similar copyright grab policy, then post the image onto Fark. Who owns the copyright then? 😆

/no rightsgrabbing issues on the Farktography forum, right? 😉

[Elsinore]

The issue is being addressed, mikemikeb, and again, the policy never changed. People are noticing the copyright notice more because the whole site changed, but the policy itself was the same going back to 2005. This is a poorly worded copyright policy, to be sure, but Drew is addressing it to bring it in line with his original intent (that being, we never give up our copyright/ownership, but allow Fark to use what we post)

[millera9]

As Elsinore has said (multiple times), it is being worked on and revised and will be changed soon. There’s an article posted to the Fark mainpage and a healthy discussion going on about this. Drew made the first post in that discussion. They’re working on it.

It would be a shame to see all you fine photographers quit based on this, especially if they revise their policy. Let’s stick around and see what happens. As mike already pointed out, next week’s contest will probably consist of mostly re-posts anyway. That’s a boon for us because it buys anyone who is nervous an extra week.

So yeah, things are not optimal at the moment, but the situation should improve drastically very soon.

-Miller

[linguine]

Also, earlier this afternoon one of the mods reposted the legal reminder saying that the photographer is the legal copyright holder of all photographs that they submit to farktography.

[zeke]

As Elsinore has said (multiple times), it is being worked on and revised and will be changed soon. There’s an article posted to the Fark mainpage and a healthy discussion going on about this. Drew made the first post in that discussion. They’re working on it.

It would be a shame to see all you fine photographers quit based on this, especially if they revise their policy. Let’s stick around and see what happens.

My understanding is the issue is being taken extremely seriously, and that Drew is actively working on correcting the issue. I absolutely agree, let’s settle down a bit, go into this with an open mind, and give them a chance. They’ve shown they honestly are trying to make things right.

As mike already pointed out, next week’s contest will probably consist of mostly re-posts anyway. That’s a boon for us because it buys anyone who is nervous an extra week.

So yeah, things are not optimal at the moment, but the situation should improve drastically very soon.

-Miller

Uhm. Next week is Sports? The anniversary is May 9th, and not for 13 days…

[zeke]

/no rightsgrabbing issues on the Farktography forum, right? 😉

All kidding and joking aside, we should probably clarify this as well, just so there’s no mistakes/gaffes of a similar nature here, as well as the FSM. CYA, yadda yadda yadda. It can’t hurt to formalize things a bit and make sure there’s no concerns about who has rights to what.

[schnee]

Here’s what the FSM has to say about it:

Fark (TM) and Totalfark (TM) are registered trademarks of Fark.com, LLC, and the content on Fark.com is protected by federal copyright law. This site's use of the intellectual property of Fark.com is pursuant to an express written license, and said license confers no endorsement, affiliation, or sponsorship of this website by Fark.com. Any republication of Fark.com content or use of Fark.com's trademarks requires an express written license by Fark.com.



All photographers showcased on this site are the legal copyright holders for the photographs displayed and attributed. The photographs are not to be considered free for any other use without written consent from the copyright holder. This site's owner ('schnee') makes no claim on any photograph other than his own.

IANAL, of course, but I hope that it (a) protects and (b) satisfies all parties. I’ll probably tweak it to ape whatever Fark.com’s rewritten policy is.

[chakalakasp]

Well technically, my understanding is that if you “turn a blind eye” to any copyright infringement, then you lose the right to pursue other instances of it. So says Disney at least 😉 Regardless, the FSM and Farktography.net don’t bother me either, but it’s another piece to the copyright issue. Anyway, I’ve emailed Drew a head’s up that this is an issue for Farktographers and PS’ers. I’d encourage you to do the same as well. I think if he understands the issues fully, he’s likely to work with us to come up with something that works for both Fark and contest folks.

I think that’s trademark infringement you’re thinking about. You do have to rather agressively defend your trademark if you want to keep it… it’s part of the law that grants trademarks. 🙂

I just saw today that Drew is taking this seriously, which is great, since it’ll help protect FARK better from here on out and also not attempt to violate submitters — everyone wins.

[millera9]

As Elsinore has said (multiple times), it is being worked on and revised and will be changed soon. There’s an article posted to the Fark mainpage and a healthy discussion going on about this. Drew made the first post in that discussion. They’re working on it.

It would be a shame to see all you fine photographers quit based on this, especially if they revise their policy. Let’s stick around and see what happens.

My understanding is the issue is being taken extremely seriously, and that Drew is actively working on correcting the issue. I absolutely agree, let’s settle down a bit, go into this with an open mind, and give them a chance. They’ve shown they honestly are trying to make things right.

As mike already pointed out, next week’s contest will probably consist of mostly re-posts anyway. That’s a boon for us because it buys anyone who is nervous an extra week.

So yeah, things are not optimal at the moment, but the situation should improve drastically very soon.

-Miller

Uhm. Next week is Sports? The anniversary is May 9th, and not for 13 days…

Crap! You are indeed correct sir. Ok, strike that one little part of my comment. Everything else still stands though…

[cras]

I’ve found an interesting conundrum for Drew and his lawyers. Let’s say that I host an image on putfile.com, which, last I checked, has a similar copyright grab policy, then post the image onto Fark. Who owns the copyright then? 😆

/no rightsgrabbing issues on the Farktography forum, right? 😉

I’m too lazy to go read, but does image shack have a similar policy as putfile?

[Author]

Posts