This is about an author, not a story. kindofhere posted a couple of stories here (Therapy Interrupted is my favorite.) that featured incest usually accompanied by recreation drug use.
They left here and took their stories exclusive to Patreon, knowing that they might be removed because incest is against the TOS.
They got removed, along with their page. Does anyone know where they might have headed?
knowing that they might be removed because incest is against the TOS.
Incest is NOT against the TOS here on SOL. There is an age restriction: no characters under 14 involved in sex.
Incest is NOT against the TOS here on SOL.
I assumed the poster meant 'might be removed from Patreon'.
AJ
Patreon has a TOS clause that can allow the to uses whatever is published there for whatever ...
https://www.thepassivevoice.com/patreon-copyright-and-personal-choice/
Also, Patreon has a venture capital problem ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRaB6xtAPj8
Patreon has a TOS clause that can allow the to uses whatever is published there for whatever
They have stated the reason for each of those clauses, and, to be honest, they are no different from just about any other platform because if they don't have those clauses, somebody will sue them for simply doing what they promised.
Yes, you are relying on them to behave, but if they don't, they'll quickly be out of business.
The last round of venture capital is FAR more of an issue than the TOS.
They have stated the reason for each of those clauses, and, to be honest, they are no different from just about any other platform because if they don't have those clauses, somebody will sue them for simply doing what they promised.
Normal publishing houses don't have those clauses about being able to do what they wish with what you publish there, neither do Lulu or D2D or SoL or several other websites that respect copyright laws.
Normal publishing houses don't have those clauses about being able to do what they wish with what you publish there, neither do Lulu or D2D or SoL or several other websites that respect copyright laws.
Yeah, because, oh, I don't know, Google has the same basic terms.
When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services.
Yeah, because, oh, I don't know, Google has the same basic terms.
And they sell all the information they learn to everyone they can. Also, Amazon has the same sort of wording in their terms. Just because some companies use such terms doesn't mean it's right to use them, or that it's safe to use them.
At this point in time the companies that use such wording say they won't ever misuse the information, but the wording does leave the door wide open for later management or staff to misuse it in any way they wish to.
At this point in time the companies that use such wording say they won't ever misuse the information, but the wording does leave the door wide open for later management or staff to misuse it in any way they wish to.
And the TOS can be changed at any time so long as they post a notice (almost all of them say so). So, ultimately, you're at their mercy no matter what the TOS say.
So, ultimately, you're at their mercy no matter what the TOS say.
Not quite. The various court cases to date allows them to change the TOS, but restrict the application of the TOS to actions after the change.
Not quite. The various court cases to date allows them to change the TOS, but restrict the application of the TOS to actions after the change.
Perhaps. But that would mean a) you have to delete the material; and b) you haven't granted them a irrevocable license even if you delete the material.
b) you haven't granted them a irrevocable license even if you delete the material.
If that term was there before you posted, you have granted them an irrevocable license to use the material.
If that term was there before you posted, you have granted them an irrevocable license to use the material.
Not exactly.
The owner of the copyright can revoke the use at any time. The exception would be if copyright was transferred, which would require a document signed by the owner, or their estate etc.
A site claiming "irrevocable license" is basically bluffing, their claim would not stand up in court if the basis was simply their T&C, without a signed document from the author specifically granting it.
The owner of the copyright can revoke the use at any time.
At no point in their TOS or what i said did I say the copyright ownership changed. However, the TOS says you are granting them permission to use what you post there how they want forever and even if you cancel the account or delete the item they can still use it, and that's the issue with it.
However, the TOS says you are granting them permission to use what you post there how they want forever and even if you cancel the account or delete the item they can still use it,
The fact that their TOS states you are granting them permission forever does NOT mean you can't change your mind and revoke that permission. Obviously they may well claim differently, but if you were to force the issue then legally they know, or will soon find out that you CAN revoke permission, regardless of their TOS.
The fact that their TOS states you are granting them permission forever does NOT mean you can't change your mind and revoke that permission.
let me know how well that argument goes in court, because irrevocable does mean you can't withdraw it the permission.
let me know how well that argument goes in court, because irrevocable does mean you can't withdraw it the permission.
You are of course correct regarding the meaning of irrevocable.
The point is the scope of any TOS the courts consider acceptable and enforceable. Anyone can write any clause into their TOS, that does not mean that if challenged that the court will uphold it. Whilst in many cases it is becoming acceptable to simply complete an online form, there are still things for which an original signature on a document is required to make it valid.
Having used the legal route to (successfully) deal with such a situation, I speak from experience rather than opinion.
Having used the legal route to (successfully) deal with such a situation, I speak from experience rather than opinion.
I think it's about time unenforceable terms like this in a TOS are punished. It's the only way to get companies to create a TOS that upholds the law. Currently the only way to get your rights are through the (costly) legal route. That's not the way it should be.
Currently the only way to get your rights are through the (costly) legal route. That's not the way it should be.
True, but the saddest part is those website TOS are like the software EULA in that there are some legal jurisdictions where they will be upheld and some where they won't be upheld. The lawyers for the companies writing them check to ensure they are legal in their jurisdiction before they approve them. The first court case would be a battle of what jurisdiction applies to the case and where it should be heard by the courts. So if you go to challenge them in court it is a very long and costly battle which is better to avoid than to rely on later.
True. Now if everybody started refusing to sign away their rights, it would change very fast. Unfortunately too many don't read or simply don't care, i.e. the average f*book user.
Currently the only way to get your rights are through the (costly) legal route. That's not the way it should be.
Whilst the cost varies greatly, yes it is mostly the only way. One need only have read the various threads on copyright here to appreciate the widely varying views on how much copyright should be respected.
A great many believe it's all good because only the big publishers will spend money on legal action. Similarly there was a recent opinion that stealing another author's characters was actually good for the original author's sales...
Whilst the cost varies greatly, yes it is mostly the only way. One need only have read the various threads on copyright here to appreciate the widely varying views on how much copyright should be respected.
A great many believe it's all good because only the big publishers will spend money on legal action. Similarly there was a recent opinion that stealing another author's characters was actually good for the original author's sales...
I'm not all that knowledgeable about copyright but what I was getting at was that authors should should be more careful themselves when using services like amazon where they sign away (part of) their rights because of the TOS and the only way to get your rights back is through the court system. If all authors read and refused unreasonable TOS, those on-line services would back off quickly and change the TOS to be more favorable to their users.
Are you going to organize the movement against the Amazon TOS?
Nope, I personally have no stake in this since I'm not an author. On the other hand, I never buy anything from amazon ;)
There are still several sites that allow stories with incest and drug use, including some allowing underaged sex (American based). A recent posting on the old ASSTR Forum highlighted the following three, which are all active:
- AOL, ArchiveOfOurOwn.org
- Dreamdwidth
- AllTheFallen.ninja
I haven't checked out the sites yet, though they sound secure (and being located in the USA, are theoretically legally protected). However, like SOL and ASSTR, all are entirely FREE sites.
Also, though ALL the major outlets restrict incest and underaged sex, they continue to be rampant online (including on Amazon). The key is to use a phony name, accept mailed checks instead of online payments, and post SHORT mini-books. That way, if one is banned, or your account deleted, you can simply repost under a new title a new alias. But since the sites ALL make a fortune off of pedaling the stories, they're not eager to block the posting of stories based on content.
Though you're unlikely to find anywhere matching Patreon, so don't hold your breathe looking.
Though you're unlikely to find anywhere matching Patreon, so don't hold your breathe looking.
If Jordan Peterson can get ThnkSpot up and running as planned, he promises a censorship free site which allows monetization similar to Patreon.
