I just wanted to check CPF.
- Thread starter bansuri
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
EZO
Flashlight Enthusiast
It is astonishing to see the kind of abuses that are hidden in ISP and similar user agreements. At one time I used Verizon for internet access, but no more!
After I indulged the time and effort to carefully read the Verizon Terms of Service I discovered a clause that most people are completely unaware of.
Most ISPs offer some free directory space for their customers. Some folks use this space for hosting a simple web site. As a photographer I used mine to upload jobs into directory folders that I could give clients access to so they could peruse the images from a particular project or download final versions for their use. These were never published openly on the internet, it was just for the convenience of my clients.
Using an Orwellian form of doublespeak Verizon states that they do not claim ownership of anything you upload to their servers, BUT you are granting them an irrevocable, permanent license to use your material for whatever purpose they want!
I called Verizon to get some clarification and spoke to several customer service representatives who at first denied this or at least sounded skeptical regarding my inquiries. Each time I directed them to the exact clause in the UA I was questioning and each time I got the exact same reaction, a long pause and then.........Huh? Then they sounded a little sheepish and apologetic but said they didn't really know about this.
Finally, I was directed to a senior executive and I explained to her that I am a professional photographer and I am uploading copyrighted and proprietary commercial intellectual property that belongs to me, my business and/or to my clients and that I am merely uploading these images to a private directory without publishing them. I was curtly told that if I was concerned about signing away the license to my work or work belonging to my clients that it would be best not to use their service!
The issue here is that this clause is BURIED in the fine print of an enormous and confusing legal document that really needs to be download and printed out to be examined and read carefully, but we are all "trained" to just click "OK".
Here is the clause in the Verizon UA I am referring to.
(6.1) Verizon claims no ownership of content you submit, upload, or otherwise make available for storage, inclusion, or appearance in publicly accessible areas on the Service (collectively, \'d2User Content\'d3). With regard to such User Content, you grant Verizon the perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, modify, adapt, reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display such User Content, in whole or in part, and to incorporate such User Content into other works in any format or medium.
After I indulged the time and effort to carefully read the Verizon Terms of Service I discovered a clause that most people are completely unaware of.
Most ISPs offer some free directory space for their customers. Some folks use this space for hosting a simple web site. As a photographer I used mine to upload jobs into directory folders that I could give clients access to so they could peruse the images from a particular project or download final versions for their use. These were never published openly on the internet, it was just for the convenience of my clients.
Using an Orwellian form of doublespeak Verizon states that they do not claim ownership of anything you upload to their servers, BUT you are granting them an irrevocable, permanent license to use your material for whatever purpose they want!
I called Verizon to get some clarification and spoke to several customer service representatives who at first denied this or at least sounded skeptical regarding my inquiries. Each time I directed them to the exact clause in the UA I was questioning and each time I got the exact same reaction, a long pause and then.........Huh? Then they sounded a little sheepish and apologetic but said they didn't really know about this.
Finally, I was directed to a senior executive and I explained to her that I am a professional photographer and I am uploading copyrighted and proprietary commercial intellectual property that belongs to me, my business and/or to my clients and that I am merely uploading these images to a private directory without publishing them. I was curtly told that if I was concerned about signing away the license to my work or work belonging to my clients that it would be best not to use their service!
The issue here is that this clause is BURIED in the fine print of an enormous and confusing legal document that really needs to be download and printed out to be examined and read carefully, but we are all "trained" to just click "OK".
Here is the clause in the Verizon UA I am referring to.
(6.1) Verizon claims no ownership of content you submit, upload, or otherwise make available for storage, inclusion, or appearance in publicly accessible areas on the Service (collectively, \'d2User Content\'d3). With regard to such User Content, you grant Verizon the perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license to use, modify, adapt, reproduce, distribute, publicly perform, and publicly display such User Content, in whole or in part, and to incorporate such User Content into other works in any format or medium.
Last edited:
DM51
Flashaholic
Wow - 6,500 words! :green:
Did I miss the part where it says you have to drink a quart of their coffee before you can log in?
Did I miss the part where it says you have to drink a quart of their coffee before you can log in?
EZO
Flashlight Enthusiast
Only one cup!
Last edited:
Dude Dudeson
Enlightened
Look I'm generally an "anti corporation/pro end consumer" kind of guy, but in this case I'd have to agree with them - if it's so "sensitive" then why upload to a third party? Sounds like you need your own server...
EZO
Flashlight Enthusiast
For the record, as a result of Verizon's policy I never did use their servers or even their DNS servers for that matter. I went with a private server at a different host who doesn't force such draconian policies on their customers and I use a DNS server that doesn't keep a record of which web sites you visit in connection with your personally identifiable information. In any event, I believe you are missing the point Dude. While you are certainly entitled to support a corporation's right to appropriate anything and everything they want that doesn't belong to them, I vociferously object to this corporate sense of entitlement.
It is simply an outrage when a corporation claims perpetual, irrevocable rights to ANY content that is hosted on their servers. It makes no difference whether it is a photographer's portfolio, a client's draft of a project or pictures of somebody's grand kids. In this day and age of viral videos and photos imagine for example, a young couple suddenly finding their baby pictures used in a Verizon ad campaign without their approval, compensation or their ability to prevent their child's image from being commercially exploited. What content is "sensitive" is relative, entirely personal and goes well beyond a commercial photographers unpublished client images.
If the signing away of such publication rights were made clear up front it would be one thing but when it is buried in the fine print many layers deep in a huge complicated legal agreement that in itself is only accessible in an obscure corner of their website it becomes an entirely different matter. Not only that, but stating that they do not claim ownership of your material but they ARE claiming permanent, irrevocable rights to your intellectual property is about as Orwellian a statement as I've ever heard. It is entirely clear that only the tiniest percentage of customers actually take the time to read through and analyze such a legal contract before clicking, "OK".
Verizon is hardly the only corporation on the internet to have such policies but theirs is among the most extreme and abusive, particularly the "perpetual, irrevocable, fully sublicensable part". In contrast, take for example Photobucket, the image hosting and sharing site widely use by CPF members. While they too have a similar policy in their user agreement claiming publication rights to anything you place on their servers, they give you the right to mark whatever you wish as private. In addition, they clearly state that when you remove your material from their website they will no longer claim any rights to your images. This is certainly a much more fair, equitable and ethical approach and stands in stark contrast to Verizon.
Here is the relevant section from Photobucket's Terms of Service Agreement with the salient wording highlighted.
6.1 Photobucket does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the Photobucket Services. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content marked "private" will not be distributed outside the Photobucket Services. Photobucket and/or other Users may copy, print or display publicly available Content outside of the Photobucket Services, including without limitation, via the Site or third party websites or applications (for example, services allowing Users to order prints of Content or t-shirts and similar items containing Content). After you remove your Content from the Photobucket Website we will cease distribution as soon as practicable, and at such time when distribution ceases, the license to such Content will terminate. If after we have distributed your Content outside the Photobucket Website you change the Content's privacy setting to "private," we will cease any further distribution of such "private" Content outside the Photobucket Website as soon as practicable.
Last edited:
flashy bazook
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,139
Good points EZO!
I made a similar point in another thread reminding people that when using iPhone apps they may unknowingly be giving important rights away. I gave an example of an app that, all it did was to help you more conveniently upload pictures to another website, unrelated to the app. For this, the user was signing away their copyright to the pictures, which was in fact enforced as some found out when trying to sell pictures they themselves had taken.
What was the response in that thread when I pointed this out? I was told my point was irrelevant, since nobody ever read the EULA.
This explains a lot about how these practices survive, user apathy.
Oh, I also tried to give an "outrageous" and, as I thought, imaginary example, what if your e-mail provider actually claimed rights to stuff you emailed, such as a book you yourself had written? It's horrifying that what you discovered is actually pretty similar to the example I had concocted!
I made a similar point in another thread reminding people that when using iPhone apps they may unknowingly be giving important rights away. I gave an example of an app that, all it did was to help you more conveniently upload pictures to another website, unrelated to the app. For this, the user was signing away their copyright to the pictures, which was in fact enforced as some found out when trying to sell pictures they themselves had taken.
What was the response in that thread when I pointed this out? I was told my point was irrelevant, since nobody ever read the EULA.
This explains a lot about how these practices survive, user apathy.
Oh, I also tried to give an "outrageous" and, as I thought, imaginary example, what if your e-mail provider actually claimed rights to stuff you emailed, such as a book you yourself had written? It's horrifying that what you discovered is actually pretty similar to the example I had concocted!
