Carla Speed McNeil alerted me to this Paypal images license change which goes into effect on June 1st. WHAT THE HECK?
“When providing us with content or posting content (in each case for publication, whether on- or off-line) using the Services, you grant the PayPal Group a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise any and all copyright, publicity, trademarks, database rights and intellectual property rights you have in the content, in any media known now or in the future. Further, to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, you waive your moral rights and promise not to assert such rights against the PayPal Group, its sublicensees or assignees. You represent and warrant that none of the following infringe any intellectual property right: your provision of content to us, your posting of content using the Services, and the PayPal Group’s use of such content (including of works derived from it) in connection with the Services.”
Full changes to license here.
OK, what I think they are trying to get at is that if one of your images in embedded in a Paypal button (or something) then you give them the right to do that. Which they’d probably have the right to do through fair use anyway.
But this gives Paypal ridiculously broad rights beyond that, and it is something creators should be aware of.
Also, it occurs to me that someone selling art they did not do, say a dealer, is violating this agreement because they do not create or own the intellectual property rights to the art they sell.
How is Paypal going to be used to sell anything? A book, a manuscript, a painting, etc. But…you don’t own a book you are reselling, you don’t own the IP of a picture you are selling. You’re just selling a physical item you own. IP rights do not convey.
IP rights also should not convey to what is basically a money changing service.
Paypal’s response to me on Twitter.
If Paypal merely wants the right to retweet, then their user agreement should say “we have the right to retweet or to post a letter you write us!” instead of making a broad statement about how they also get things like trademarks in anything you “post” or “provide”. The user agreement is too broad and needs a rewrite.
UPDATE: Some excellent commentary on the language of the user agreement. Not going to grab your rights, but the language of the agreement is still lousy.