noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
I discovered this article earlier this week. Thoughts??
Link: http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=33160
Link: http://redicecreations.com/article.php?id=33160
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Hmm...
Um, what content do I provide or post for Paypal to publish? What "Services"? I use Paypal to make and receive payments. I've never once posted or provided anything to Paypal for publication.
I don't understand to whom this applies.
G
Um, what content do I provide or post for Paypal to publish? What "Services"? I use Paypal to make and receive payments. I've never once posted or provided anything to Paypal for publication.
I don't understand to whom this applies.
G
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
This is basically the same spiel you get from every website you upload any content to. It allows them to resize images to make thumbnails, for them to use your images/whatever for things like banners or ads on the site, etc. The "non-exclusive" license (meaning you retain rights off the site) and "related to the services" bits are the important parts for understanding that's what they're talking about. And beyond that, what sort of content does one upload to paypal? I don't think I've ever uploaded anything to paypal.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
If the above is true, then why did PayPal make this announcement?
Last time I checked, "all" means "ALL" - particularly when attorneys, contract law and the courts become involved.
Sparrow
Veteran
... and fails the "reasonableness test" by a country mile in any Fair Contracts Legislation one cares to look at
kxl
Social Documentary
Merchant services, as an example... uploading a company logo and/or other images for use in a Paypal express check-out page.
The headline in the OP is an exaggeration--meant to grab attention. Paypal is not asserting ownership; The new Sections 15.5 and 15.6 are asserting licensing agreements, i.e., Paypal is asserting that when you upload an image to Paypal services you are granting permission for Paypal to use the image. You would retain copyright.
Whether or not this passes muster once copyright attorneys get their hands on it is another question.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
That's what I figured. More needless, sensationalist, hyperbole... Weird stuff.
G
G
Matthew Runkel
Well-known
My thought is "consider the source."
willie_901
Veteran
Well... I'll never post one of my photos on PayPal again.
Oh, wait....
Oh, wait....
Tejasican
Well-known
Checked with an IP attorney, after reading it they said it is as bad as it sounds and I should drop PayPal. There are alternatives.
Huss
Veteran
What is as bad as it sounds? If you do not post images to Paypal, there is nothing here. Maybe if you have a company logo?
Is he suggesting that because I use Paypal, then my photos stored elsewhere suddenly become Paypal property because I used Paypal to buy flea medication for my dogs?
You need to clarify your IP attorney's statement. Or provide one from him, with the basis for his statement.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The twin clues are " anyone who uses its payment services" and "all intellectual property".
The first means that you don't have to post images: just use their payment services. The second is not really hard to understand.
As has already been pointed out, this would not have a hope in hell in court, and I hope they fire whoever wrote such nonsense (especially if they were a highly paid lawyer). The mere fact that they even try to get away with such drivel says a lot about them. Assuming of course that it is reported accurately, which may well not be the case. In the latter case, the drivel-merchants are redicecreations.com
Cheers,
R. (LL.B.)
The first means that you don't have to post images: just use their payment services. The second is not really hard to understand.
As has already been pointed out, this would not have a hope in hell in court, and I hope they fire whoever wrote such nonsense (especially if they were a highly paid lawyer). The mere fact that they even try to get away with such drivel says a lot about them. Assuming of course that it is reported accurately, which may well not be the case. In the latter case, the drivel-merchants are redicecreations.com
Cheers,
R. (LL.B.)
JHutchins
Well-known
But it is not accurately reported. PayPal is not claiming a right in all intellectual property of anyone who used it's payment services. That is the inept and alarmist characterization of the author of the article. PayPal is claiming a non exclusive right on content provided to it or posted using PayPal services. And as someone above noted, such an agreement is standard and necessary since even just the process of transmission of the code on PayPal servers is arguably copyright infringement without such a license.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Tejasican
Well-known
The attorney is a specialist in IP so yes real. The recommendation was to never sell photography or other creative work through Paypal as long as this is in the agreement- which is really all I needed - a stay or go. Given the response for sharing, I'm sorry I bothered. It won't happen again.
JHutchins
Well-known
All I can say is that I think he must have given you advice based on incomplete information. I am also an attorney. I don't specialize in IP but I have done IP work and have a pretty good resume (JD Univ. of Minnesota 2002, magna cum laude, admitted in DC and Alaska, for eight years an associate at Arnold & Porter, LLP in DC, for the last four and a half years an assistant attorney general for the state of Alaska) and I'd have no qualms about using PayPal myself. My own opinions and not those of any employer, past or present, and not legal advice.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Curiosity, nothing more; how many of you logged in to PayPal and read their T&C's after reading this?
And what did you find...
Regards, David
Curiosity, nothing more; how many of you logged in to PayPal and read their T&C's after reading this?
And what did you find...
Regards, David
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
And you will notice that paypals terms make no such claim. The only person who has made this claim is the person who wrote the article. There is nothing in the wording that could possibly be interpreted as paypal claiming all rights to everything anybody who uses their service has ever come up with. It is in regard to content which is uploaded, and says plainly that the license is "non-exclusive" meaning that you (the uploader) can do whatever you want with that content. And since I, and most people, don't upload any IP to paypal there is nothing to worry about. And even if I did, this is not really any worse than the terms for sites like flickr or image bucket, or any other image hosting type site.
Sparrow
Veteran
... couldn't be bothered, and anyway reading tees'n c's could well prejudice any future witness statements regarding the account
I'm guessing Mr Cheese made it up?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, I'm grateful, even if no-one else is. Along with the responses, it was an EXTREMELY useful reminder not to rely on worthless internet reporting. So thanks.
Cheers,
R.