Short version: current language has been in place since 2005, we don't claim to own submitted PS, AE, Farktography stuff etc. Language needs some cleaning, we're on it. Rock on Cleveland

BORING!!!

Yay, I own my own boobies!

Farked.

Okay, Drew.

Now address the other stuff.

You know what i mean.

Fark stole my soul, and sold it on Ebay

It's stuff like this that makes me so glad I decided not to become a lawyer. That, and the fact that I'm not smart, and I don't like reading.

Jesus - the author's mom must have taken away his WoW account for a few days.

/we can't trust The Sword of 1000 Truths to a NOOB!

So wait... that means if I posted a copyrighted article... then it becomes the property of Fark.com? I'm pretty sure you can't copyright a copyright. Unless the copyright implies the context in which it is posted......


/rambling

But I already got over it.

Now I have to get used to owning my stuff again.

Got a heckuva copyright lawyer, if you need one. She's a farking genius.

He can have my weakarse comments. GOT NUTHIN. Ha! copyright that!

I'm most worried about the naked man-slave army Rugbyjock's been assembling for Drew.

I'd forgotten how much fun it is to try to find where I left off each time I revisit a thread. My right index finger will be really ripped soon.

Yes ...and ??

I peed a little.

Drew: Rock on Cleveland

Rock on Chi-ca-go. Pontiac. We build Excitement!

Good thread idea, Drew.

owwie...article makes jrodnewb's head hurt...

:-(

kiere moir... *cry...

We... er, some of us know what the intention is. But regardless, intention isn't what's legally binding - it's the written terms that are. So, yeah, reassurances that "we only want a little breathing space" are nice now, but if for some reason the powers of darkness take over later, it won't prevent all of Europe from...

Er.

Well, you get the picture.

/Disclaimer: This post is in no way intended to imply that Drew is a Nazi. It just seemed like the "breathing space" bit was a suitable and fairly well known analogy... especially after Star Trek 6.

Drew: Short version: current language has been in place since 2005, we don't claim to own submitted PS, AE, Farktography stuff etc. Language needs some cleaning, we're on it. Rock on Cleveland

TFA: If you posted a work to Fark, you could not legally sell it to a publisher, to a record label or to a movie studio. You could include it in a book that you yourself made, but you could not sell the copyright or even your right to republish to anyone else.

...

Second, Fark can do pretty much anything they wish with the work. They can compile it into a book, CD or video and sell it, they can license it to other sites and redistribute it as they see fit under whatever licenses they see fit.

Third, any Creative Commons License you originally placed the work under would be invalid. Since you are no longer the copyright holder, you no longer have the right to set the licensing terms. This could lead to trouble for anyone that reuses your content under the terms of the license but later runs afoul of Fark's new licensing scheme, whatever it might be.

Drew, I'm confused. TFA seems to be completely contradictory to your comment. Please enlighten me as to how I am pitiably, excruciatingly incorrect and stupid.

Getting everything ready for upcoming sale to Google?

I feel kind of bad for you. You own the poop I contribute.

Cool. Thanks for addressing this, Drew. When I originally saw it brought up in a FarkTV thread, I was a little worried, but figured it was just badly written. Then, as time went on with no fix, I kinda got a little worried. ;)

That's all well and good...

/...but who owns the slashies?!

So when is Fark.com vs. ICanHasCheezburger.com?

/Drew should get the $65M pants guy to litigate it
//i haz a muneez
///not anymore apparently it's Drew's

Kudos to Drew for being responsive to this.

I never bothered to read the terms before, but it's pretty obvious in reading them (based on my having taken one undergraduate legal course years ago, at least) that such terms are invalid. There's no mutual consideration (assuming the right to post doesn't count, which perhaps it does?), so the contract isn't binding, and there's no employment, so it's not a work for hire.

Also, without Drew's assurances, the old terms seem really creepy and evil. So, uh, keep an eye on the attorney who wrote them, eh?

you tricked me. i want 10 percent of the ad revenue from the 836 greenlights i wrote for you, you wily Kentuckyan.

I submitted this...

// Oh, nevermind

B-b-but I'm too old to be a sex slave!

thenateman: Getting everything ready for upcoming sale to Google?


Gark?
Fargle?
Gfark?

What are you saying?

/sftu&gbtwminds want to know

Drew owns all poop threads, period.

Don't EVER forget it.

Does that mean BeanFreak gets to retain the rights to publish a coffee-table book of his MS Paint drawings? Because I've got that thing on pre-order at Amazon.com

So, if I say "My Dick," does that mean that Drew owns my dick, but that I can still use it in a non-exclusive manner? Does my wife have any say in this? Or maybe Jessica Alba?

Given that most Photoshop content is made from images stolen from other sites, Fark claiming *any* kind of rights to those images is a very, very bad idea. Should the true copyright owner step forward upon finding out that Fark is claiming rights over derivatives largely based on their own work (and turning a tidy profit off the advertising on those images) - well, you could end up in very hot water indeed.

we don't claim to own submitted PS, AE, Farktography stuff etc

Yes you do

You may not want to claim that, or may not even be legally able to, but your site policy supercedes random offhand remarks in emails.

So, hurry up and change the policy, put in a retroactive clause too.

Get over it?

Good stuff, Drew. I'm glad this is finally getting some of the traction it's deserved, and I'm glad you're being responsive to our criticisms/suggestions about the policy. Thanks.

all ur wordz r owned by us.

/Lawyers and alcohol don't mix.

For this reason I have been refusing to submit my million dollar photoshops...I am waiting for the clarification.

Oh, that and I have zero phot shop skills, or a program to do that shiat.

Steam On Cleveland!

You guys need a better lawyer.

VWSpeedRacer: I'm confused. TFA seems to be completely contradictory to your comment.

What constitutes a posting? Do embedded image links count? It's unclear, even if the terms were valid, that Drew would own anything more than the <img src="whatever"> text.

Does this mean the TF Kitchen threads will come back? I admit, I'm not entirely in the loop on that, but I think it ended because of some questions about the legal verbiage.

hiya John I've missed you. How are things? I hope you're well! :P

togamoos: enlighten me as to how I am pitiably, excruciatingly incorrect and stupid.

Perhaps this update at the end was he was referring to?

Update: Just before this story went up, Curtis emailed me with a new draft of the text that addresses all of these issues. Once the new text is looked at by an attorney, he plans on using it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as images go the only thing a user can "submit" to Fark is the following example text:

<img src="http://yafh.com/image/mypictureofstuff.jpg"/>

People are making a lot of nothing out of this.

I'm glad there was a three-step system designed to protect me from Fark included in the article. Without it, I'm pretty sure I'd have been duped into prostitution just for the ability to post here.

Just in case: Fark.com or, at its option, a Fark.com appointed bukket-seeking walrus or walrii can have have ownership of this post.

So this has been an issue since 2005, so anything written on Fark since this took place is owned by Fark? Good to see you guys are on it 2 years after the fact, geeze. Sorry if I sound cynical, but the last 24 hours have been eye opening when dealing with Fark.