Last Updated on May 6, 2021
Terms of Service lay out the rules for using a website and those rules aren’t always in your favor. Maybe, instead, you should be asking yourself if you still want to maintain the exclusive rights to your art? That may sound severe but it is something people need to consider, especially for sites like Flickr, Facebook, or SoundCloud where artists may be uploading their visual work or musical compositions. Yet there are so many sites with so many different terms; how can we make sense of it all?
Sites need a TOS. They must protect themselves, as does any party entering into a contractual agreement although sometimes they are broader than necessary. But look at it from the point of view of the legal team writing them; they want to provide their client with the greatest protection possible, considering every contingency they can imagine. The breadth and depth of the terms will depend on the size of the user base and how many different services are provided. So, the TOS for large sites, like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Flickr are extensive and often end up looking like an unnecessary rights grab
Let’s look at Facebook for an example. Imagine Facebook creates a poster that will be distributed in every major city. The poster art is a collage of Facebook profile screens, each poster containing only profiles from people living in that city. Facebook does not want to obtain permission from every person on that artwork, especially since it may contain copyrighted materials. Having surmised that this kind of marketing was possible, the attorneys writing the TOS added in broad copyright and licensing language, including the right to use the material without specific permission as well as a perpetual license for that material just in case years later, they can re-use the same image even if the users have deactivated their accounts.
Facebook probably has no intention of exercising those broad powers, and if they did, it would likely be limited to reuse, but they could likely use the images in ways that might be harmful to the reputation of the artist and affect the value of the artistic work. But Facebook also knows that a broad TOS will not result in the loss of many users. While the user might find the TOS unacceptable, they will likely still use the service and probably never read the TOS in the first place, so don’t understand the risk.
That is a conundrum that is difficult to overcome but here let me make my audience aware of a little software tool that might help. Terms of Service: Didn’t Read is an add-on for Firefox and Chrome that provides a summary of the TOS for sites as you surf. It’s simple to use; just surf to a site, click the question mark in the toolbar and a summary of the TOS for that site will be provided. The tool has a large database of sites so it seems to work for at least most of the larger sites. Below is the summary for the copyright section on Facebook:
The copyright license that you grant to Facebook goes beyond the requirements for operating the service. For instance, it includes the right for Facebook to transfer the license or to license it others on their terms (“sublicense”). Also, the copyright license does not end when you stop using the service unless your content has been deleted by everyone else.
The add-on provides a discussion area so people can comment on each aspect of the TOS. It’s free, so give it a try, and maybe it will help you make better and more informed decisions and keep you from losing some of your exclusive rights.
As a photographer and Patent Attorney with a background in marketing, Steve has a unique perspective on art, law, and business. He is currently serving as the Chief Product Officer at Artrepreneur. You can find his photography at artrepreneur.com or through Fremin Gallery in NYC.