FA+
Shop
1333
Views
Views
51
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 577 x 871
File Size 235.7 kB
Report this content
★
More from o-kemono
Lucid's Dream web comic has been moved
It is with a heavy heart that I have decided to remove Lucid's Dream series off of ComicFury website, the main page Lucid's Dream was posted. The reason why is because ComicFury has posted a new Terms Of Service that raised a lot of red flags. Too many words were very close to together in their Licensing and Publishing terms, such as
"...non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable right and license to hosting, storing, reproducing, publishing, transmitting, adapting, modifying and (publicly or otherwise) displaying that content..."
I understand that they are trying to cover their website, however the way it was worded made me feel very uncomfortable, and I had to force agree to it before I could access my comic. I tried to contact them ( through forums, which was the only way to get to them ), but after more than a week, they didn't respond. So not wanting to take any chances, I deleted the comic, but not the page as me, Soryane and my friend Pup worked hard to code and put together the page layout. Gift art and updates will be posted on there, but not the comic itself.
The comic will now be posted on WebToons. Here is the new link to my web comic: ( https://www.webtoons.com/en/challen.....itle_no=103763 ). The comic is getting back on its feet and will resume posting in October. I will also be streaming the penciling and inking of the comic on my stream if anyone is interested. Ko-Fi donations still help a lot of the comic's growth, so if you wish to donate, please go here ( https://ko-fi.com/lucidsdream ) Very high donations will offer you the opportunity to have your own character DRAWN in the comic itself, be it cat, mouse, dog or bird!
Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope you will continue to help support and enjoy my web comic Lucid's Dream!
- Ookami Kemono
"...non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable right and license to hosting, storing, reproducing, publishing, transmitting, adapting, modifying and (publicly or otherwise) displaying that content..."
I understand that they are trying to cover their website, however the way it was worded made me feel very uncomfortable, and I had to force agree to it before I could access my comic. I tried to contact them ( through forums, which was the only way to get to them ), but after more than a week, they didn't respond. So not wanting to take any chances, I deleted the comic, but not the page as me, Soryane and my friend Pup worked hard to code and put together the page layout. Gift art and updates will be posted on there, but not the comic itself.
The comic will now be posted on WebToons. Here is the new link to my web comic: ( https://www.webtoons.com/en/challen.....itle_no=103763 ). The comic is getting back on its feet and will resume posting in October. I will also be streaming the penciling and inking of the comic on my stream if anyone is interested. Ko-Fi donations still help a lot of the comic's growth, so if you wish to donate, please go here ( https://ko-fi.com/lucidsdream ) Very high donations will offer you the opportunity to have your own character DRAWN in the comic itself, be it cat, mouse, dog or bird!
Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope you will continue to help support and enjoy my web comic Lucid's Dream!
- Ookami Kemono
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 577 x 871px
File Size 235.7 kB
"...non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable right and license to hosting, storing, reproducing, publishing, transmitting, adapting, modifying and (publicly or otherwise) displaying that content..."
This is part of the ToS of any website that handles artist content (you'll find it on Deviantart, Tumblr and FA itself, for example): if it's not, it should be. It's a requirement to stop you demanding royalties from them for hosting your content, and grants them no novel rights to your content.
Note what's been cut off the end there is "...for the purposes of providing the features and services on the ComicFury web site." They cannot use the licence you grant them for anything not related to the running of their own website, or you have them on breach of contract.
To separate out the words:
"non-exclusive" - You can still grant use of your material to others, they do not own it.
"worldwide" - Somewhat important for a website
"royalty-free" - You agree they do not have to pay you to host your material
"sublicensable" - They can grant this licence to third parties (subject to the term that it must be for the running of the site)
"transferable" - Mainly there so they don't have to strip all the user content from the site if they ever sell it
"hosting, storing, reproducing, publishing" - All functions of the site
"adapting, modifying" - By adding their own elements to your work to make a complete web page, they are technically making a derivative work, so they need your permission to do so.
"displaying" - Function of the site.
Please don't panic over things like this, US copyright law is designed specifically to make it incredibly hard to sign over the rights to your work without knowing you've done it: it requires that the permission be "an instrument in writing," an online adhesion contract like this one simply isn't enough.
This is part of the ToS of any website that handles artist content (you'll find it on Deviantart, Tumblr and FA itself, for example): if it's not, it should be. It's a requirement to stop you demanding royalties from them for hosting your content, and grants them no novel rights to your content.
Note what's been cut off the end there is "...for the purposes of providing the features and services on the ComicFury web site." They cannot use the licence you grant them for anything not related to the running of their own website, or you have them on breach of contract.
To separate out the words:
"non-exclusive" - You can still grant use of your material to others, they do not own it.
"worldwide" - Somewhat important for a website
"royalty-free" - You agree they do not have to pay you to host your material
"sublicensable" - They can grant this licence to third parties (subject to the term that it must be for the running of the site)
"transferable" - Mainly there so they don't have to strip all the user content from the site if they ever sell it
"hosting, storing, reproducing, publishing" - All functions of the site
"adapting, modifying" - By adding their own elements to your work to make a complete web page, they are technically making a derivative work, so they need your permission to do so.
"displaying" - Function of the site.
Please don't panic over things like this, US copyright law is designed specifically to make it incredibly hard to sign over the rights to your work without knowing you've done it: it requires that the permission be "an instrument in writing," an online adhesion contract like this one simply isn't enough.
I really wish that ComicFury would send me this explanation, but since they didn't and remained silent, I decided to jump ship.
If they worded the TOS in another way instead of making it vary vague and questionable with several holes they can pass through to get what they wanted, I wouldn't have a problem.
ComicFury is not an American domain, but German. Their copyright laws varies here and there. Also, the Copyright Law in the US is very fickle with loopholes one can exploit and use. Also, The US Government constantly tries to push the Orphan bill which basically states that any art online can be used for profit by a company or anyone, without the creator's permission. If its online, its free grabs.
DA has a very weak TOS when it comes to the protection of artwork there. Back when they said that "you are not allowed to steal artwork and they will protect your works", they later changed it so they won't protect the artist whose artwork is stolen/traced/rendered/duplicated, even if the evidence is as clear as daylight. Plus they also have the right to take your work and render it for promotional purposes without your permission, even make prints to "advertise" themselves as well. This was all back when I was a regular on DA, but left after the drama and changes.
Being a victim of art thief numerous of times, I have to be careful and take steps to make sure my work is safe to an extent. I've posted my works in sites in the past where they basically say "you post it on our site, it is ours and we can do what we wish with it" hidden in their "TOS".
If they worded the TOS in another way instead of making it vary vague and questionable with several holes they can pass through to get what they wanted, I wouldn't have a problem.
ComicFury is not an American domain, but German. Their copyright laws varies here and there. Also, the Copyright Law in the US is very fickle with loopholes one can exploit and use. Also, The US Government constantly tries to push the Orphan bill which basically states that any art online can be used for profit by a company or anyone, without the creator's permission. If its online, its free grabs.
DA has a very weak TOS when it comes to the protection of artwork there. Back when they said that "you are not allowed to steal artwork and they will protect your works", they later changed it so they won't protect the artist whose artwork is stolen/traced/rendered/duplicated, even if the evidence is as clear as daylight. Plus they also have the right to take your work and render it for promotional purposes without your permission, even make prints to "advertise" themselves as well. This was all back when I was a regular on DA, but left after the drama and changes.
Being a victim of art thief numerous of times, I have to be careful and take steps to make sure my work is safe to an extent. I've posted my works in sites in the past where they basically say "you post it on our site, it is ours and we can do what we wish with it" hidden in their "TOS".
The Orphan Bill is mainly opposed by industry people who are afraid they might lose out, its actual purpose is to create a sort of "innocent until proven guilty" standard for re-publishing the literally millions of pieces of media where it is unclear if the copyright holder is even still alive. It's primarily for things like producing online copies of books that libraries physically own without them being subject to ridiculous fines should the author come forward.
Bear in mind that the proposed 2008 bill would require a defendant in a copyright case using an Orphan Works defence to prove that they performed a "diligent search" to contact the copyright holder before using the material, filed a Notice of Use with the US Copyright Office and credited the original author, so it would not prevent claims for genuine, deliberate infringement.
Bear in mind that the proposed 2008 bill would require a defendant in a copyright case using an Orphan Works defence to prove that they performed a "diligent search" to contact the copyright holder before using the material, filed a Notice of Use with the US Copyright Office and credited the original author, so it would not prevent claims for genuine, deliberate infringement.
While this is an interpretation that you have of the "for the purposes... blah blah blah.", another interpretation that can be gleaned from those words is that you grant them the rights to reproduce, as they see fit, the content uploaded to the website and whatever they do with that content, no matter the medium, is a fair exchange for using their service to host the comic.
In other words: the way I interpret those ToS is that while the artist retains the rights to the comic, the service provider (comicfury) is allowed to reproduce the content in any medium they see fit the content and get money from it if they so choose (let's say, they make a comic anthology and sell it) , which would be considered compensation for the use of the service.
While I'm all for legal talk and the like, having legalese against "normal people" when said "normal people" might not be as well versed into the language is a dangerous things if your goal is to, as in this case, offer a service that deals with art.
People can bitch and moan about FA all they want, while they have a very similar (nearly word-for-word, in fact) ToS as ComicFury, they also have a handy-dandy "In other words..." section for all of us non-legalese people that clarifies the intent in such a way that there is no doubt in our minds. And still, the complicated language is there to make lawyers happy too, so everyone wins.
While I do agree, upon reading your version, that it is the likely scenario, fact that is that upon first (and multiple) readings of the CF's ToS, I couldn't help but shake the feeling as I described in my first interpretation, hence why I suggested that Ookami contact CF for a clarification (which he failed to get). Anfd now, as we know, he moved his stuff somewhere else.
But I'm no lawyer, so I only could help him so much before either referring him to legal counsel or to CF themselves...
At any rate, what's done is done. :)
Hopefully, for the best no matter what.
In other words: the way I interpret those ToS is that while the artist retains the rights to the comic, the service provider (comicfury) is allowed to reproduce the content in any medium they see fit the content and get money from it if they so choose (let's say, they make a comic anthology and sell it) , which would be considered compensation for the use of the service.
While I'm all for legal talk and the like, having legalese against "normal people" when said "normal people" might not be as well versed into the language is a dangerous things if your goal is to, as in this case, offer a service that deals with art.
People can bitch and moan about FA all they want, while they have a very similar (nearly word-for-word, in fact) ToS as ComicFury, they also have a handy-dandy "In other words..." section for all of us non-legalese people that clarifies the intent in such a way that there is no doubt in our minds. And still, the complicated language is there to make lawyers happy too, so everyone wins.
While I do agree, upon reading your version, that it is the likely scenario, fact that is that upon first (and multiple) readings of the CF's ToS, I couldn't help but shake the feeling as I described in my first interpretation, hence why I suggested that Ookami contact CF for a clarification (which he failed to get). Anfd now, as we know, he moved his stuff somewhere else.
But I'm no lawyer, so I only could help him so much before either referring him to legal counsel or to CF themselves...
At any rate, what's done is done. :)
Hopefully, for the best no matter what.
No, that can't be the case because of the omitted portion that says that the right and license is "...for the purposes of providing the features and services on the ComicFury web site." If they do anything with it that is not for that purpose, bam, breach of contract.
If they did try to have a ToS that worked like that it would violate statuary copyright law re: their duty to show necessary proof that you agreed to a transfer of rights and so would be void, because you can't write a contract that's superior to the law of the land. Like, people have been trying to pull scams like this since copyright was invented, that's why any country will have a mountain of case law that says no, you don't get to do that.
If they did try to have a ToS that worked like that it would violate statuary copyright law re: their duty to show necessary proof that you agreed to a transfer of rights and so would be void, because you can't write a contract that's superior to the law of the land. Like, people have been trying to pull scams like this since copyright was invented, that's why any country will have a mountain of case law that says no, you don't get to do that.
"No, that can't be the case because of the omitted portion that says that the right and license is..."
...
...
Not wanting to sound bad, but the very first words of my reply are "While this is an interpretation that you have of the 'for the purposes ... blah blah blah'".
Like, literally, the first words are addressing directly what you are saying. It is not omitted; it's what I'm directly talking about.
And that's exactly what I'm saying: "For the purposes of... ... on the ComicFury web site.".
The way I interpret that line is that they can do what they want with the content hosted on the site in lieu of payment. True, this wording could about the dissemination and sharing of the hosted content. But it can also be interpreted as the way that ComicFury has, if they want to share the content in any other way and retain monetary gains from those methods, as well.
I'm not saying I'm right in this as I'm no lawyer, but I don't think that any reasonable person reading that ToS wouldn't make that association either; case in point, Ookami was worried exactly because of that wording.
Legalese is all fine and dandy until a normal, non-lawyer person has to deal with it, in which case obfuscation of intent is quite easily achieved as a "normal joe" won't know the jargon used. And since this is the exact intent of legalese, it's a two-edged sword and thus, in this instance, has played against ComicFury's use of it with Ookami.
...
...
Not wanting to sound bad, but the very first words of my reply are "While this is an interpretation that you have of the 'for the purposes ... blah blah blah'".
Like, literally, the first words are addressing directly what you are saying. It is not omitted; it's what I'm directly talking about.
And that's exactly what I'm saying: "For the purposes of... ... on the ComicFury web site.".
The way I interpret that line is that they can do what they want with the content hosted on the site in lieu of payment. True, this wording could about the dissemination and sharing of the hosted content. But it can also be interpreted as the way that ComicFury has, if they want to share the content in any other way and retain monetary gains from those methods, as well.
I'm not saying I'm right in this as I'm no lawyer, but I don't think that any reasonable person reading that ToS wouldn't make that association either; case in point, Ookami was worried exactly because of that wording.
Legalese is all fine and dandy until a normal, non-lawyer person has to deal with it, in which case obfuscation of intent is quite easily achieved as a "normal joe" won't know the jargon used. And since this is the exact intent of legalese, it's a two-edged sword and thus, in this instance, has played against ComicFury's use of it with Ookami.
Naw, that's much too broad, contract law will always use very strict definitions of terms. If you're using it to fund the site that's a whole different thing to using it to operate the site and would require the signing of actual release forms, of which this isn't one.
The problem with adding a non-legalese section is that if it's not done right, an attorney can actually use it to argue with the terms of the contract since it's still technically part of that contract. The legalese is written in this weird format because it's addressing sections of statue or case law that are worded in a weird fashion.
The problem with adding a non-legalese section is that if it's not done right, an attorney can actually use it to argue with the terms of the contract since it's still technically part of that contract. The legalese is written in this weird format because it's addressing sections of statue or case law that are worded in a weird fashion.
Comments