I have been a seller on snapixel.com for a while. While I’ve yet to make a sale, so far I’ve been reasonably happy with how they seem to do business. They’re open, they respond to emails, and they seem like good people.
I like sites that seem like good people. Flickr gets my traffic, and my suggestions and references to other people. I print through moo.com and I love them, mostly because of their public attitude, but also because of their behind the scenes emails etc. that I’ve exchanged with various people working for them etc.
So today on flickr, I was surprised to see this post (retweeted by @snapixel):
RT @abstracts: RT @lazytweet: [from @kevwil] is @snapixel a rights grab? not sure what to think of their TOS & Licence Thoughts?
So, I of course replied, my interest piqued.
I don’t see @snapixel as a rights grab, I think the TOS and Licence are fair. I’m intrested to know concerns @abstracts @lazytweet @kevwil
I got the following response:
RT @suprspi: I don’t see @snapixel as a rights grab, I think the TOS and Licence are fair. — Have you read para 2.1? — @lazytweet @kevwil
So, I dutifully trotted off and read the offending paragraph. Warning, legalese ahead!
“2.1 Licensor hereby grants to Snapixel the non-exclusive, worldwide sub-licensable right and license, with respect to all intellectual property rights, to make, use, sell, copy, market, distribute, modify, create derivative works, and publicly perform and display all Content uploaded by Licensor through any and all modes of distribution now known or hereafter existing. Licensor further grants to Snapixel a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and sub-licensable license to use Licensor’s trademarks, names, and likeliness along with associated goodwill in connection with the Content and its promotion; such usage shall inure to Licensor’s benefit.”
Hmm. It doesn’t seem to bad to me. Non-exclusive, gives them a bunch of rights, but hey, they need them to pass them on right? And, what if they want to do something with my photos to benefit me, for instance putting them on the front page, watermarked with a link to my portfolio and a cool saying plastered across.
But, in the interest of interesting (to me) conversation and discussion I figured I’d keep the discussion going.
@abstracts 2.1 seems fairly boilerplate for any img sharing/selling site – non excl, I’m not sure how they could sell/display w/o @snapixel
And the reply:
@suprspi Its not the exclusive part – what about the right to create derivitive works for example?
Hmm. True. Do they need that right to sell it? I’m not a lawyer, I don’t know. Do they need to to modify an image to promote you? For instance, like I mentioned above, Snapixel quite often features images that link back to a seller or sharer’s portfolio, sometimes with a word or phrase on it to attract interest. Is that needed? I really don’t know but I kept the discussion flowing:
@abstracts here is a page comparing facebook to flickr et al. http://alturl.com/8mbx @snapixel seems similiar – what am I missing?
Then, I suggested moving the discussion to blogs, so it’s in one place with more than 140 characters. Twitter is fun and viral, but it’s not really a good forum for in depth discussions.
I did get these responses though:
@suprspi @snapixel I know – they all do the same but doesn’t mean it’s right! Each must make own choice and decide if price worth paying
@suprspi @snapixel @lazytweet @kevwil also too late now in UK – leave you all to discuss 😉
Snapixel also posted a response that looked like this:
@kevwil @abstracts We have licenses for photographers sharing and selling. Two specific agreements. We’re not a .. http://bit.ly/bajHbn
So – we get to this point. Does Snapixel, or any image provider, need these rights? Is it a rights grab? My gut says no, but then, I’m not a lawyer, just a photographer interested in copyright law.
I’d like to invite @abstracts and @snapixel to comment on this post, or to send a followup email with their points and arguments which I will post as it’s own post with a link back to your site/blog etc. I find this to be a very interesting and pertinent discussion topic in these modern days of social media, image sharing and all the web 2.0 (or is it 3.0 now?) stuff going on.
There is some interesting followup discussion going on here: http://www.lazytweet.com/post/10324633800 Especially the paragraph by @snapixel:
@abstracts We have licenses for photographers sharing and selling. Two specific agreements. We’re not a rights grab. Plan on selling photos? See our content submission agreement: http://bit.ly/ag7btp 1. Ownership. Except as otherwise mutually agreed upon, Licensor will remain the exclusive owner of all rights, titles and interests, including copyright, in and to all Contents. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, no title or copyright is granted or transferred to Snapixel or any third party. Snapixel shall obtain Licensor’s prior written approval before Snapixel distribute the Content for the purposes of resale or re-license.
So readers – any thoughts? Feel free to chime in!