Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Yep! Twitter is gonna make a fortune off your drunken night at Chili's
Posted by: ZuDfunck |
October 18, 2010 1:45 PMLet's see. . . you use a free service and then want them to promote your restricted material and give you the profits. . . hmmm... yeah, I would like that deal also.
This really sounds like much to do about nothing. Let me see, I have a photo that I want to sell at some point but show it off on twitter. How can I do that without loss of my property? Well, maybe make a low res thumb of your image and upload that with slight modifications, like a watermark, then the original image is still yours to do with as you please, isn't it?
I don't know but this sounds a bit ridiculous. How many problems would arise if such services allowed everyone to copyright everything they submit? Well, when you think of it it's really funny. . . people complain about every company suing every other company over patents and how those sofware patents shouldn't be allowed yada, yada, but WAIT!!! when it comes to my precious picture that I'm going to upload via a free service. . . I WANT IT PROTECTED!
Posted by: gpeasy |
October 18, 2010 1:55 PMThis article, and all of the other articles that this stemmed from, contains a fundamental misunderstanding about the definition of "Content" in the context of Twitter. Twitter's "Content" is the 140 characters and any metadata stored and served by Twitter. Anything that requires a URL to access (i.e. a link shared on Twitter) is not considered "Content" in the context of Twitter's ToS (from http://twitter.com/tos "any information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Services (collectively referred to as 'Content')").
This may become an issue if Twitter were to—say for example—buy TwitPic or create their own Photo Sharing tool. And yes, there is potential legal concern with the way that their Media Pane system works in the #newtwitter UI design, as it does state "appearing on" but for their license to apply to the content of their Media Pane, it would require that the license from the service allowing their content to be displayed to be sub-licensed. Prior to the Media Pane in #newtwitter, I would have said this is a complete non-issue. Now, it's just something to "watch" and, if you're really worried about it, don't use services that work in the Media Pane.
tl;dr: This article is vastly misleading. "Content" is the text in a tweet and anything you upload directly to a Twitter website, not to a third-party service or your own servers.
You should know better, RWW.
Posted by: Michael Owens |
October 18, 2010 1:57 PMThis is a significant development for professionals, and it's worth noting to the general public. I wonder how often the people at Twitter might acutally take advantage of this...? The web seems to get more "open" every day, something we all need to be aware of.
Posted by: David Perdew |
October 18, 2010 1:57 PMThis is about lawyers and their constant need to prove value to their clients (whom they charge absurd hourly rates to).
A number of lawyers take this approach (non-exclusive license; right to reproduce, sub-license, etc.). Other, more reasonable lawyers take more of the BasecampHQ approach to managing data on behalf of someone (albeit, under paid accounts).
If Twitter ever tried to resell a photo that was uploaded, they would (most likely) run afoul of a range of Copyright Laws while they try to uphold their T&C which are one-sided and were never reviewed by their User's attorney's in a fair and reasonable negotiation. Additionally, if a Minor uploads photos, without parental consent, good luck appropriating those under their T&C.
If Twitter had strong management, who had more experience, they'd fire the lawyer who wrote the T&C and say, "thanks, bye." Then, go find an attorney who's more forward thinking.
Posted by: Bob |
October 18, 2010 2:04 PMI agree with @MichaelOwens on this, mostly a non-issue. From the TOS,
"...information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Services (collectively referred to as “Content”)."
So it looks like photos you upload to Twitter (your profile pic and background image) can be used by them, but your linked photos are not uploaded to Twitter so they don't count as "Content" in the TOS.
The only gray area I see is photos appearing in the media pane, since the definition of content includes "appearing on the Services," so avoid using twitpic and the like and there is no issue.
tl;dr +1 to @michaelowens' point
Posted by: aaron.pk |
October 18, 2010 2:27 PMSo, if my photo is hosted at my paid Flickr account and it's labeled "All Rights Reserved" but I send a link to my photo to Twitter... who owns it now?
Posted by: Erin |
October 18, 2010 2:32 PMSeriously? This is a surprise to anyone? People share pictures on Twitter (and third party pic services) because they want the world to see it and SHARE it. Professional photos aren't posting their masterpieces on TwitPic.
Posted by: Russ Hill |
October 18, 2010 2:39 PMMichael Owens said much what I came to say so I won't repeat him.
Based on the false logic of this article, you are implying that if I share a link to a NY Times article, Twitter can use the content from that article to their hearts content. Obviously false.
Anyone can put anything they want into a TOS but that doesn't mean its legal.
Posted by: Jmartens |
October 18, 2010 2:43 PMI am not an expert on this topic, but I believe companies (like Twitter) need to have clauses like this in the TOS to protect themselves from copyright violations. They need the freedom to copy, modify, and reproduce contributed content as well as the right to move it around in on their servers. Technically wouldn't Twitter be violating copyright if the original author didn't approve of how their content was being used, displayed, or modified by Twitter? I was given this notion from different company's rep that deals with online content distribution. Although, the way companies word their TOS make many people worry about losing control of there IP.
Posted by: bobsbag |
October 18, 2010 3:32 PMI don't believe this is as casual as some of the comments indicate; nor, is the Post so off-track.
Twitter are acquiring both photo and video developers to bring this all in-house.
To @bobsbag's point -- yes, Twitter need some non-exclusive publication right, within the boundaries of their service (even extended to the future to some degree); or, even a self-extending license based on a User not deleting files. What Twitter do NOT require is an unrestricted License coupled with the ability to sell, transfer or in any manner profit from the direct licensing of content (they can sell ad space around it and use it for promotional purposes).
Now, yes, anyone would be a fool to post anything on nearly any "free" service out there if they intend to use it commercially themselves. But, I'd look to Flickr's T&C for a better model than what Twitter provide. There are a slew of alternatives out there, only a high paid lawyer will tell you they "must have these draconian T&C."
Posted by: bob r. |
October 18, 2010 5:33 PMObviously false.
Anyone can put anything they want into a TOS but that doesn't mean its lega
Posted by: ogame |
October 18, 2010 8:30 PMSorry but their is no way that this can be legit or enforced. adding a URL to a permalink that contains an embedded image and/or download links to higher quality versions of that image (or other media) does not give Twitter the rights defined in the ToS. Even if this were the legal intentions by Twitter's lawyers and business executives, I have to assume that this would not hold up in a court of law... that is if the terms are not properly modified before a case were to ever get that far.
As for the issue of displaying media on the #NewTwitter Right Side Column used for presenting supplemental meta data, media and eventually ads..... This is not really an issue since only official content partners can use this real estate and those services ToS already apply. I have been waiting for over a month (contacted contentpartnerships@twitter.com) to learn more about the content embedding situation. I'd assume that their would be a whitelisting process and then twitter would utilize common tech to fetch and display media from approved domains (oembed, link rel & meta tags). Ideally, Twitter would also pull in License info when specified and content creators would use preview/watermarked versions of their media for display inside Twitter.com while reserving the high quality media as separate embeds/links on the URL/page.
Posted by: sull |
October 18, 2010 9:19 PMThe problem is people don't try to understand legalise, and try to understand the tech terms for the same. Now lets look at the part of the ToS he has quoted.
use, copy(copy from photo sites to display them within twitter, pic may be copied to cache), reproduce(retweet), process, modify and adapt (reduce 2mb pic to may be 100kb before displaying it), publish (just in case someone decides to print a twitterfeed from a browser?), transmit (send across the internetz), display (duh!) and distribute such Content (retweet!)
"You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use"
You know, people use Twitter API and I think that's what they are talking about here. So please stop freaking out, really!
If there's a newsworthy pic you have taken, the agencies will contact you and not twitter. Do they really think Twitter would employ somebody to handle silly requests from media like this? Really?Posted by: | Balu | |
October 19, 2010 12:08 AMNon-issue.
This is a standard language to protect company from people who would upload stuff onto a content distribution service and then sue the same service for copyright infringement. Check Yahoo's, for example:
"With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available."
Posted by: twitterer |
October 19, 2010 12:30 AMWell, Twitter can use the photos, and they can even sell them further. So if they appear on magazine covers, tough luck.
However, for use in advertisements, pictures of people need a model release. So there are limits to what the images can be used for. But in general, yes. Twitter (and Facebook) can do pretty much what they want or dare with the content they are sent.
Most of the legalese is there to make the actual service possible, but eg. Twitters ToS goes beyond that.
Posted by: Tarmo Toikkanen |
October 19, 2010 12:39 AMThis might be beneficial for twitter but I don't think that general public would like this. This seems disturbing to any pro photographers who tweet their photographs.
Posted by: street bike accessories |
October 19, 2010 2:18 AMSeriously now, if you share your photos via Twitter or any other social media sites, you lose its rights exclusively and can be picked up by anyone and use it anywhere. If you have photos you don’t want to be used all over the internet, don’t share it or publish it anywhere. Once it is published, it’s gone unless you have stated on your own website against using the photos for other purposes other than yours.
Posted by: Steve Jobs |
October 19, 2010 9:18 AMThis is clearly a load of nonsense. Michael Owens above has debunked this misleading information nicely but I'll add some food for thought: if an article from the New York Times appears in the Twitter media pane can Twitter re-publish and sell that article? I think not. Nor do they "own" your photo. Photofocus did not "consult it's lawyers," Scott Bourne asked his buddy Larry to scan the TOS. Larry is obviously not an entertainment lawyer and knows little about content licensing. This scare mongering was well deconstructed by petapixel dot com yesterday, It's sad that this noise is still floating around and considered legitamate information.
Posted by: Daniel K. Berman |
October 19, 2010 9:39 AMThese are all great comments, and I'm glad to see people unpack this item -- though it's interesting to see where you all agree and disagree. The critiques of our coverage are compelling and much appreciated, though it's important to see that question mark in the title. I put it there for a reason.
I don't think Twitter is "evil" nor do I think that the wildest interpretation of what can be enforced (or not) with the ToS changes are necessarily true. What is important is that a photo blog had consulted their lawyers about it. And lots of people (still) have questions about it. The coverage is the conversation, and we can all only weigh in until our questions are answered. PhotoFocus' means of getting these questions answered was to ask their counsel. And that's significant.
Posted by: Violet Blue |
October 19, 2010 4:10 PMIt we view this to the point of twitter then it's quite beneficial for them, they can do what they want with other photos but I don't think that public would like this.
Posted by: flash banner |
October 19, 2010 11:06 PMYep! Twitter is gonna make a fortune off your drunken night at Chili's
Posted by: ZuDfunck |
October 18, 2010 1:45 PMLet's see. . . you use a free service and then want them to promote your restricted material and give you the profits. . . hmmm... yeah, I would like that deal also.
This really sounds like much to do about nothing. Let me see, I have a photo that I want to sell at some point but show it off on twitter. How can I do that without loss of my property? Well, maybe make a low res thumb of your image and upload that with slight modifications, like a watermark, then the original image is still yours to do with as you please, isn't it?
I don't know but this sounds a bit ridiculous. How many problems would arise if such services allowed everyone to copyright everything they submit? Well, when you think of it it's really funny. . . people complain about every company suing every other company over patents and how those sofware patents shouldn't be allowed yada, yada, but WAIT!!! when it comes to my precious picture that I'm going to upload via a free service. . . I WANT IT PROTECTED!
Posted by: gpeasy |
October 18, 2010 1:55 PMThis article, and all of the other articles that this stemmed from, contains a fundamental misunderstanding about the definition of "Content" in the context of Twitter. Twitter's "Content" is the 140 characters and any metadata stored and served by Twitter. Anything that requires a URL to access (i.e. a link shared on Twitter) is not considered "Content" in the context of Twitter's ToS (from http://twitter.com/tos "any information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Services (collectively referred to as 'Content')").
This may become an issue if Twitter were to—say for example—buy TwitPic or create their own Photo Sharing tool. And yes, there is potential legal concern with the way that their Media Pane system works in the #newtwitter UI design, as it does state "appearing on" but for their license to apply to the content of their Media Pane, it would require that the license from the service allowing their content to be displayed to be sub-licensed. Prior to the Media Pane in #newtwitter, I would have said this is a complete non-issue. Now, it's just something to "watch" and, if you're really worried about it, don't use services that work in the Media Pane.
tl;dr: This article is vastly misleading. "Content" is the text in a tweet and anything you upload directly to a Twitter website, not to a third-party service or your own servers.
You should know better, RWW.
Posted by: Michael Owens |
October 18, 2010 1:57 PMThis is a significant development for professionals, and it's worth noting to the general public. I wonder how often the people at Twitter might acutally take advantage of this...? The web seems to get more "open" every day, something we all need to be aware of.
Posted by: David Perdew |
October 18, 2010 1:57 PMThis is about lawyers and their constant need to prove value to their clients (whom they charge absurd hourly rates to).
A number of lawyers take this approach (non-exclusive license; right to reproduce, sub-license, etc.). Other, more reasonable lawyers take more of the BasecampHQ approach to managing data on behalf of someone (albeit, under paid accounts).
If Twitter ever tried to resell a photo that was uploaded, they would (most likely) run afoul of a range of Copyright Laws while they try to uphold their T&C which are one-sided and were never reviewed by their User's attorney's in a fair and reasonable negotiation. Additionally, if a Minor uploads photos, without parental consent, good luck appropriating those under their T&C.
If Twitter had strong management, who had more experience, they'd fire the lawyer who wrote the T&C and say, "thanks, bye." Then, go find an attorney who's more forward thinking.
Posted by: Bob |
October 18, 2010 2:04 PMI agree with @MichaelOwens on this, mostly a non-issue. From the TOS,
"...information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Services (collectively referred to as “Content”)."
So it looks like photos you upload to Twitter (your profile pic and background image) can be used by them, but your linked photos are not uploaded to Twitter so they don't count as "Content" in the TOS.
The only gray area I see is photos appearing in the media pane, since the definition of content includes "appearing on the Services," so avoid using twitpic and the like and there is no issue.
tl;dr +1 to @michaelowens' point
Posted by: aaron.pk |
October 18, 2010 2:27 PMSo, if my photo is hosted at my paid Flickr account and it's labeled "All Rights Reserved" but I send a link to my photo to Twitter... who owns it now?
Posted by: Erin |
October 18, 2010 2:32 PMSeriously? This is a surprise to anyone? People share pictures on Twitter (and third party pic services) because they want the world to see it and SHARE it. Professional photos aren't posting their masterpieces on TwitPic.
Posted by: Russ Hill |
October 18, 2010 2:39 PMMichael Owens said much what I came to say so I won't repeat him.
Based on the false logic of this article, you are implying that if I share a link to a NY Times article, Twitter can use the content from that article to their hearts content. Obviously false.
Anyone can put anything they want into a TOS but that doesn't mean its legal.
Posted by: Jmartens |
October 18, 2010 2:43 PMI am not an expert on this topic, but I believe companies (like Twitter) need to have clauses like this in the TOS to protect themselves from copyright violations. They need the freedom to copy, modify, and reproduce contributed content as well as the right to move it around in on their servers. Technically wouldn't Twitter be violating copyright if the original author didn't approve of how their content was being used, displayed, or modified by Twitter? I was given this notion from different company's rep that deals with online content distribution. Although, the way companies word their TOS make many people worry about losing control of there IP.
Posted by: bobsbag |
October 18, 2010 3:32 PMI don't believe this is as casual as some of the comments indicate; nor, is the Post so off-track.
Twitter are acquiring both photo and video developers to bring this all in-house.
To @bobsbag's point -- yes, Twitter need some non-exclusive publication right, within the boundaries of their service (even extended to the future to some degree); or, even a self-extending license based on a User not deleting files. What Twitter do NOT require is an unrestricted License coupled with the ability to sell, transfer or in any manner profit from the direct licensing of content (they can sell ad space around it and use it for promotional purposes).
Now, yes, anyone would be a fool to post anything on nearly any "free" service out there if they intend to use it commercially themselves. But, I'd look to Flickr's T&C for a better model than what Twitter provide. There are a slew of alternatives out there, only a high paid lawyer will tell you they "must have these draconian T&C."
Posted by: bob r. |
October 18, 2010 5:33 PMObviously false.
Anyone can put anything they want into a TOS but that doesn't mean its lega
Posted by: ogame |
October 18, 2010 8:30 PMSorry but their is no way that this can be legit or enforced. adding a URL to a permalink that contains an embedded image and/or download links to higher quality versions of that image (or other media) does not give Twitter the rights defined in the ToS. Even if this were the legal intentions by Twitter's lawyers and business executives, I have to assume that this would not hold up in a court of law... that is if the terms are not properly modified before a case were to ever get that far.
As for the issue of displaying media on the #NewTwitter Right Side Column used for presenting supplemental meta data, media and eventually ads..... This is not really an issue since only official content partners can use this real estate and those services ToS already apply. I have been waiting for over a month (contacted contentpartnerships@twitter.com) to learn more about the content embedding situation. I'd assume that their would be a whitelisting process and then twitter would utilize common tech to fetch and display media from approved domains (oembed, link rel & meta tags). Ideally, Twitter would also pull in License info when specified and content creators would use preview/watermarked versions of their media for display inside Twitter.com while reserving the high quality media as separate embeds/links on the URL/page.
Posted by: sull |
October 18, 2010 9:19 PMThe problem is people don't try to understand legalise, and try to understand the tech terms for the same. Now lets look at the part of the ToS he has quoted.
use, copy(copy from photo sites to display them within twitter, pic may be copied to cache), reproduce(retweet), process, modify and adapt (reduce 2mb pic to may be 100kb before displaying it), publish (just in case someone decides to print a twitterfeed from a browser?), transmit (send across the internetz), display (duh!) and distribute such Content (retweet!)
"You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use"
You know, people use Twitter API and I think that's what they are talking about here. So please stop freaking out, really!
If there's a newsworthy pic you have taken, the agencies will contact you and not twitter. Do they really think Twitter would employ somebody to handle silly requests from media like this? Really?Posted by: | Balu | |
October 19, 2010 12:08 AMNon-issue.
This is a standard language to protect company from people who would upload stuff onto a content distribution service and then sue the same service for copyright infringement. Check Yahoo's, for example:
"With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available."
Posted by: twitterer |
October 19, 2010 12:30 AMWell, Twitter can use the photos, and they can even sell them further. So if they appear on magazine covers, tough luck.
However, for use in advertisements, pictures of people need a model release. So there are limits to what the images can be used for. But in general, yes. Twitter (and Facebook) can do pretty much what they want or dare with the content they are sent.
Most of the legalese is there to make the actual service possible, but eg. Twitters ToS goes beyond that.
Posted by: Tarmo Toikkanen |
October 19, 2010 12:39 AMThis might be beneficial for twitter but I don't think that general public would like this. This seems disturbing to any pro photographers who tweet their photographs.
Posted by: street bike accessories |
October 19, 2010 2:18 AMSeriously now, if you share your photos via Twitter or any other social media sites, you lose its rights exclusively and can be picked up by anyone and use it anywhere. If you have photos you don’t want to be used all over the internet, don’t share it or publish it anywhere. Once it is published, it’s gone unless you have stated on your own website against using the photos for other purposes other than yours.
Posted by: Steve Jobs |
October 19, 2010 9:18 AMThis is clearly a load of nonsense. Michael Owens above has debunked this misleading information nicely but I'll add some food for thought: if an article from the New York Times appears in the Twitter media pane can Twitter re-publish and sell that article? I think not. Nor do they "own" your photo. Photofocus did not "consult it's lawyers," Scott Bourne asked his buddy Larry to scan the TOS. Larry is obviously not an entertainment lawyer and knows little about content licensing. This scare mongering was well deconstructed by petapixel dot com yesterday, It's sad that this noise is still floating around and considered legitamate information.
Posted by: Daniel K. Berman |
October 19, 2010 9:39 AMThese are all great comments, and I'm glad to see people unpack this item -- though it's interesting to see where you all agree and disagree. The critiques of our coverage are compelling and much appreciated, though it's important to see that question mark in the title. I put it there for a reason.
I don't think Twitter is "evil" nor do I think that the wildest interpretation of what can be enforced (or not) with the ToS changes are necessarily true. What is important is that a photo blog had consulted their lawyers about it. And lots of people (still) have questions about it. The coverage is the conversation, and we can all only weigh in until our questions are answered. PhotoFocus' means of getting these questions answered was to ask their counsel. And that's significant.
Posted by: Violet Blue |
October 19, 2010 4:10 PMIt we view this to the point of twitter then it's quite beneficial for them, they can do what they want with other photos but I don't think that public would like this.
Posted by: flash banner |
October 19, 2010 11:06 PMYep! Twitter is gonna make a fortune off your drunken night at Chili's
Posted by: ZuDfunck |
October 18, 2010 1:45 PMLet's see. . . you use a free service and then want them to promote your restricted material and give you the profits. . . hmmm... yeah, I would like that deal also.
This really sounds like much to do about nothing. Let me see, I have a photo that I want to sell at some point but show it off on twitter. How can I do that without loss of my property? Well, maybe make a low res thumb of your image and upload that with slight modifications, like a watermark, then the original image is still yours to do with as you please, isn't it?
I don't know but this sounds a bit ridiculous. How many problems would arise if such services allowed everyone to copyright everything they submit? Well, when you think of it it's really funny. . . people complain about every company suing every other company over patents and how those sofware patents shouldn't be allowed yada, yada, but WAIT!!! when it comes to my precious picture that I'm going to upload via a free service. . . I WANT IT PROTECTED!
Posted by: gpeasy |
October 18, 2010 1:55 PMThis article, and all of the other articles that this stemmed from, contains a fundamental misunderstanding about the definition of "Content" in the context of Twitter. Twitter's "Content" is the 140 characters and any metadata stored and served by Twitter. Anything that requires a URL to access (i.e. a link shared on Twitter) is not considered "Content" in the context of Twitter's ToS (from http://twitter.com/tos "any information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Services (collectively referred to as 'Content')").
This may become an issue if Twitter were to—say for example—buy TwitPic or create their own Photo Sharing tool. And yes, there is potential legal concern with the way that their Media Pane system works in the #newtwitter UI design, as it does state "appearing on" but for their license to apply to the content of their Media Pane, it would require that the license from the service allowing their content to be displayed to be sub-licensed. Prior to the Media Pane in #newtwitter, I would have said this is a complete non-issue. Now, it's just something to "watch" and, if you're really worried about it, don't use services that work in the Media Pane.
tl;dr: This article is vastly misleading. "Content" is the text in a tweet and anything you upload directly to a Twitter website, not to a third-party service or your own servers.
You should know better, RWW.
Posted by: Michael Owens |
October 18, 2010 1:57 PMThis is a significant development for professionals, and it's worth noting to the general public. I wonder how often the people at Twitter might acutally take advantage of this...? The web seems to get more "open" every day, something we all need to be aware of.
Posted by: David Perdew |
October 18, 2010 1:57 PMThis is about lawyers and their constant need to prove value to their clients (whom they charge absurd hourly rates to).
A number of lawyers take this approach (non-exclusive license; right to reproduce, sub-license, etc.). Other, more reasonable lawyers take more of the BasecampHQ approach to managing data on behalf of someone (albeit, under paid accounts).
If Twitter ever tried to resell a photo that was uploaded, they would (most likely) run afoul of a range of Copyright Laws while they try to uphold their T&C which are one-sided and were never reviewed by their User's attorney's in a fair and reasonable negotiation. Additionally, if a Minor uploads photos, without parental consent, good luck appropriating those under their T&C.
If Twitter had strong management, who had more experience, they'd fire the lawyer who wrote the T&C and say, "thanks, bye." Then, go find an attorney who's more forward thinking.
Posted by: Bob |
October 18, 2010 2:04 PMI agree with @MichaelOwens on this, mostly a non-issue. From the TOS,
"...information, text, graphics, or other materials uploaded, downloaded or appearing on the Services (collectively referred to as “Content”)."
So it looks like photos you upload to Twitter (your profile pic and background image) can be used by them, but your linked photos are not uploaded to Twitter so they don't count as "Content" in the TOS.
The only gray area I see is photos appearing in the media pane, since the definition of content includes "appearing on the Services," so avoid using twitpic and the like and there is no issue.
tl;dr +1 to @michaelowens' point
Posted by: aaron.pk |
October 18, 2010 2:27 PMSo, if my photo is hosted at my paid Flickr account and it's labeled "All Rights Reserved" but I send a link to my photo to Twitter... who owns it now?
Posted by: Erin |
October 18, 2010 2:32 PMSeriously? This is a surprise to anyone? People share pictures on Twitter (and third party pic services) because they want the world to see it and SHARE it. Professional photos aren't posting their masterpieces on TwitPic.
Posted by: Russ Hill |
October 18, 2010 2:39 PMMichael Owens said much what I came to say so I won't repeat him.
Based on the false logic of this article, you are implying that if I share a link to a NY Times article, Twitter can use the content from that article to their hearts content. Obviously false.
Anyone can put anything they want into a TOS but that doesn't mean its legal.
Posted by: Jmartens |
October 18, 2010 2:43 PMI am not an expert on this topic, but I believe companies (like Twitter) need to have clauses like this in the TOS to protect themselves from copyright violations. They need the freedom to copy, modify, and reproduce contributed content as well as the right to move it around in on their servers. Technically wouldn't Twitter be violating copyright if the original author didn't approve of how their content was being used, displayed, or modified by Twitter? I was given this notion from different company's rep that deals with online content distribution. Although, the way companies word their TOS make many people worry about losing control of there IP.
Posted by: bobsbag |
October 18, 2010 3:32 PMI don't believe this is as casual as some of the comments indicate; nor, is the Post so off-track.
Twitter are acquiring both photo and video developers to bring this all in-house.
To @bobsbag's point -- yes, Twitter need some non-exclusive publication right, within the boundaries of their service (even extended to the future to some degree); or, even a self-extending license based on a User not deleting files. What Twitter do NOT require is an unrestricted License coupled with the ability to sell, transfer or in any manner profit from the direct licensing of content (they can sell ad space around it and use it for promotional purposes).
Now, yes, anyone would be a fool to post anything on nearly any "free" service out there if they intend to use it commercially themselves. But, I'd look to Flickr's T&C for a better model than what Twitter provide. There are a slew of alternatives out there, only a high paid lawyer will tell you they "must have these draconian T&C."
Posted by: bob r. |
October 18, 2010 5:33 PMObviously false.
Anyone can put anything they want into a TOS but that doesn't mean its lega
Posted by: ogame |
October 18, 2010 8:30 PMSorry but their is no way that this can be legit or enforced. adding a URL to a permalink that contains an embedded image and/or download links to higher quality versions of that image (or other media) does not give Twitter the rights defined in the ToS. Even if this were the legal intentions by Twitter's lawyers and business executives, I have to assume that this would not hold up in a court of law... that is if the terms are not properly modified before a case were to ever get that far.
As for the issue of displaying media on the #NewTwitter Right Side Column used for presenting supplemental meta data, media and eventually ads..... This is not really an issue since only official content partners can use this real estate and those services ToS already apply. I have been waiting for over a month (contacted contentpartnerships@twitter.com) to learn more about the content embedding situation. I'd assume that their would be a whitelisting process and then twitter would utilize common tech to fetch and display media from approved domains (oembed, link rel & meta tags). Ideally, Twitter would also pull in License info when specified and content creators would use preview/watermarked versions of their media for display inside Twitter.com while reserving the high quality media as separate embeds/links on the URL/page.
Posted by: sull |
October 18, 2010 9:19 PMThe problem is people don't try to understand legalise, and try to understand the tech terms for the same. Now lets look at the part of the ToS he has quoted.
use, copy(copy from photo sites to display them within twitter, pic may be copied to cache), reproduce(retweet), process, modify and adapt (reduce 2mb pic to may be 100kb before displaying it), publish (just in case someone decides to print a twitterfeed from a browser?), transmit (send across the internetz), display (duh!) and distribute such Content (retweet!)
"You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use"
You know, people use Twitter API and I think that's what they are talking about here. So please stop freaking out, really!
If there's a newsworthy pic you have taken, the agencies will contact you and not twitter. Do they really think Twitter would employ somebody to handle silly requests from media like this? Really?Posted by: | Balu | |
October 19, 2010 12:08 AMNon-issue.
This is a standard language to protect company from people who would upload stuff onto a content distribution service and then sue the same service for copyright infringement. Check Yahoo's, for example:
"With respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted or made available."
Posted by: twitterer |
October 19, 2010 12:30 AMWell, Twitter can use the photos, and they can even sell them further. So if they appear on magazine covers, tough luck.
However, for use in advertisements, pictures of people need a model release. So there are limits to what the images can be used for. But in general, yes. Twitter (and Facebook) can do pretty much what they want or dare with the content they are sent.
Most of the legalese is there to make the actual service possible, but eg. Twitters ToS goes beyond that.
Posted by: Tarmo Toikkanen |
October 19, 2010 12:39 AMThis might be beneficial for twitter but I don't think that general public would like this. This seems disturbing to any pro photographers who tweet their photographs.
Posted by: street bike accessories |
October 19, 2010 2:18 AMSeriously now, if you share your photos via Twitter or any other social media sites, you lose its rights exclusively and can be picked up by anyone and use it anywhere. If you have photos you don’t want to be used all over the internet, don’t share it or publish it anywhere. Once it is published, it’s gone unless you have stated on your own website against using the photos for other purposes other than yours.
Posted by: Steve Jobs |
October 19, 2010 9:18 AMThis is clearly a load of nonsense. Michael Owens above has debunked this misleading information nicely but I'll add some food for thought: if an article from the New York Times appears in the Twitter media pane can Twitter re-publish and sell that article? I think not. Nor do they "own" your photo. Photofocus did not "consult it's lawyers," Scott Bourne asked his buddy Larry to scan the TOS. Larry is obviously not an entertainment lawyer and knows little about content licensing. This scare mongering was well deconstructed by petapixel dot com yesterday, It's sad that this noise is still floating around and considered legitamate information.
Posted by: Daniel K. Berman |
October 19, 2010 9:39 AMThese are all great comments, and I'm glad to see people unpack this item -- though it's interesting to see where you all agree and disagree. The critiques of our coverage are compelling and much appreciated, though it's important to see that question mark in the title. I put it there for a reason.
I don't think Twitter is "evil" nor do I think that the wildest interpretation of what can be enforced (or not) with the ToS changes are necessarily true. What is important is that a photo blog had consulted their lawyers about it. And lots of people (still) have questions about it. The coverage is the conversation, and we can all only weigh in until our questions are answered. PhotoFocus' means of getting these questions answered was to ask their counsel. And that's significant.
Posted by: Violet Blue |
October 19, 2010 4:10 PMIt we view this to the point of twitter then it's quite beneficial for them, they can do what they want with other photos but I don't think that public would like this.
Posted by: flash banner |
October 19, 2010 11:06 PM
Hullabaloo
Saturday, September 25, 2010
NY Times Miss Manners Hints At Truth
by digby
The New York Times features an interesting story this morning about a move across teh country to remove judges by people who don't like their decisions:After the State Supreme Court here stunned the nation by making this the first state in the heartland to allow same-sex marriage, Iowa braced for its sleepy judicial elections to turn into referendums on gay marriage.
The three Supreme Court justices on the ballot this year are indeed the targets of a well-financed campaign to oust them. But the effort has less to do with undoing same-sex marriage — which will remain even if the judges do not — than sending a broader message far beyond this state’s borders: voters can remove judges whose opinions they dislike.
Around the country, judicial elections that were designed to be as apolitical as possible are suddenly as contentious as any another race.
In Kansas, anti-abortion activists are seeking to recall a justice. In Illinois, business interests are campaigning against the chief justice after a case that removed a cap on malpractice liability, prompting him to run a television ad that opens with the declaration, “I am not a politician.” And a conservative group called Clear the Bench Colorado is citing a host of decisions in seeking to oust the full slate of justices on the ballot there, urging voters, “Be a citizen, not a subject.”
It goes on to point out that the laws many of them were using were designed to remove corrupt or incompetent judges but are now being used to send a message that judges who do not adhere to certain views will be kicked out of office.
It also points out that there is big money involved, with the campaigns being underwritten by corporate interests and wealthy Christian groups.
But they forgot to connect the dots in this story. Do you notice something that all these cases around the country have in common? Yes, I knew that you could -- they are all being waged by right wingers. This "trend" is decidedly one-sided, run by a minority faction in America who have decided that their interpretation of the laws and the constitution will be imposed upon everyone.
Far be it for me to suggest that intimidating judges and replacing ones you don't like with social conservatives might be just a little bit theocratic and surely nobody can believe thatcorporate sponsored removal campaigns are designed to make it impossible for moderate or conservative judges to compete against business friendly judges. It would be very impolite to point any of that out, which is why, I'm sure that the New York Times didn't bother to do it.
They simply left some little hints for the discerning reader to sift through:
Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which has spent $230,000 on television ads criticizing the Iowa judges, said he understood that removing the three judges would not change the same-sex marriage ruling. (It was a unanimous ruling by the state’s seven justices.) But Mr. Brown said he hoped the judges’ ouster would help prevent similar rulings elsewhere by making judges around the nation aware that their jobs are on the line.
“It sends a powerful message,” he said, “That if justices go outside the bounds of their oaths, if the justices go outside the bounds of the U.S. and state constitutions they’re going to be held accountable.”
Bob Vander Plaats, who made opposition to same-sex marriage a centerpiece of his unsuccessful run for governor in Iowa, is leading the ouster campaign on behalf of the political arm of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian organization based in Tupelo, Miss.
“My bigger fear isn’t about injecting politics into judicial retention elections. The bigger fear is that we don’t hold them in check,” he said, warning that gun and property rights could be at risk.
Make of that what you will dear reader. But never say that the NY Times stooped to the level of shrill bloggers who suggest that the far right might have a radical agenda. Let no one say that the old Gray Lady is anything but well mannered.
.
digby 9/25/2010 09:00:00 AM
|
robert shumake twitter
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 19, 2010 at 7:59am. image Yesterday we noted that “Newsweek” has released its list of ...
The openSUSE Build Service 2.1 released - openSUSE <b>News</b>
This iteration has enhanced the web user interface of openSUSE Build Service with features that were previously only in the osc command line client. It now allows submitting of packages to other projects, showing a history of changes ...
ABC <b>News</b> Exclusive: Tea Party Candidate in Nevada Senate May Tip <b>...</b>
Scott Ashjian calls himself the “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate for US Senate, but he tells ABC News that he would be “at peace” knowing he helped re-elect Harry Reid by siphoning votes away from Sharron Angle. The Note, authored by ABC ...
robert shumake twitter
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Hullabaloo
Saturday, September 25, 2010
NY Times Miss Manners Hints At Truth
by digby
The New York Times features an interesting story this morning about a move across teh country to remove judges by people who don't like their decisions:After the State Supreme Court here stunned the nation by making this the first state in the heartland to allow same-sex marriage, Iowa braced for its sleepy judicial elections to turn into referendums on gay marriage.
The three Supreme Court justices on the ballot this year are indeed the targets of a well-financed campaign to oust them. But the effort has less to do with undoing same-sex marriage — which will remain even if the judges do not — than sending a broader message far beyond this state’s borders: voters can remove judges whose opinions they dislike.
Around the country, judicial elections that were designed to be as apolitical as possible are suddenly as contentious as any another race.
In Kansas, anti-abortion activists are seeking to recall a justice. In Illinois, business interests are campaigning against the chief justice after a case that removed a cap on malpractice liability, prompting him to run a television ad that opens with the declaration, “I am not a politician.” And a conservative group called Clear the Bench Colorado is citing a host of decisions in seeking to oust the full slate of justices on the ballot there, urging voters, “Be a citizen, not a subject.”
It goes on to point out that the laws many of them were using were designed to remove corrupt or incompetent judges but are now being used to send a message that judges who do not adhere to certain views will be kicked out of office.
It also points out that there is big money involved, with the campaigns being underwritten by corporate interests and wealthy Christian groups.
But they forgot to connect the dots in this story. Do you notice something that all these cases around the country have in common? Yes, I knew that you could -- they are all being waged by right wingers. This "trend" is decidedly one-sided, run by a minority faction in America who have decided that their interpretation of the laws and the constitution will be imposed upon everyone.
Far be it for me to suggest that intimidating judges and replacing ones you don't like with social conservatives might be just a little bit theocratic and surely nobody can believe thatcorporate sponsored removal campaigns are designed to make it impossible for moderate or conservative judges to compete against business friendly judges. It would be very impolite to point any of that out, which is why, I'm sure that the New York Times didn't bother to do it.
They simply left some little hints for the discerning reader to sift through:
Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which has spent $230,000 on television ads criticizing the Iowa judges, said he understood that removing the three judges would not change the same-sex marriage ruling. (It was a unanimous ruling by the state’s seven justices.) But Mr. Brown said he hoped the judges’ ouster would help prevent similar rulings elsewhere by making judges around the nation aware that their jobs are on the line.
“It sends a powerful message,” he said, “That if justices go outside the bounds of their oaths, if the justices go outside the bounds of the U.S. and state constitutions they’re going to be held accountable.”
Bob Vander Plaats, who made opposition to same-sex marriage a centerpiece of his unsuccessful run for governor in Iowa, is leading the ouster campaign on behalf of the political arm of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian organization based in Tupelo, Miss.
“My bigger fear isn’t about injecting politics into judicial retention elections. The bigger fear is that we don’t hold them in check,” he said, warning that gun and property rights could be at risk.
Make of that what you will dear reader. But never say that the NY Times stooped to the level of shrill bloggers who suggest that the far right might have a radical agenda. Let no one say that the old Gray Lady is anything but well mannered.
.
digby 9/25/2010 09:00:00 AM
|
bench craft company reviews
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 19, 2010 at 7:59am. image Yesterday we noted that “Newsweek” has released its list of ...
The openSUSE Build Service 2.1 released - openSUSE <b>News</b>
This iteration has enhanced the web user interface of openSUSE Build Service with features that were previously only in the osc command line client. It now allows submitting of packages to other projects, showing a history of changes ...
ABC <b>News</b> Exclusive: Tea Party Candidate in Nevada Senate May Tip <b>...</b>
Scott Ashjian calls himself the “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate for US Senate, but he tells ABC News that he would be “at peace” knowing he helped re-elect Harry Reid by siphoning votes away from Sharron Angle. The Note, authored by ABC ...
robert shumake detroit
robert shumake detroit
robert shumake detroit
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 19, 2010 at 7:59am. image Yesterday we noted that “Newsweek” has released its list of ...
The openSUSE Build Service 2.1 released - openSUSE <b>News</b>
This iteration has enhanced the web user interface of openSUSE Build Service with features that were previously only in the osc command line client. It now allows submitting of packages to other projects, showing a history of changes ...
ABC <b>News</b> Exclusive: Tea Party Candidate in Nevada Senate May Tip <b>...</b>
Scott Ashjian calls himself the “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate for US Senate, but he tells ABC News that he would be “at peace” knowing he helped re-elect Harry Reid by siphoning votes away from Sharron Angle. The Note, authored by ABC ...
robert shumake hall of shame
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Hullabaloo
Saturday, September 25, 2010
NY Times Miss Manners Hints At Truth
by digby
The New York Times features an interesting story this morning about a move across teh country to remove judges by people who don't like their decisions:After the State Supreme Court here stunned the nation by making this the first state in the heartland to allow same-sex marriage, Iowa braced for its sleepy judicial elections to turn into referendums on gay marriage.
The three Supreme Court justices on the ballot this year are indeed the targets of a well-financed campaign to oust them. But the effort has less to do with undoing same-sex marriage — which will remain even if the judges do not — than sending a broader message far beyond this state’s borders: voters can remove judges whose opinions they dislike.
Around the country, judicial elections that were designed to be as apolitical as possible are suddenly as contentious as any another race.
In Kansas, anti-abortion activists are seeking to recall a justice. In Illinois, business interests are campaigning against the chief justice after a case that removed a cap on malpractice liability, prompting him to run a television ad that opens with the declaration, “I am not a politician.” And a conservative group called Clear the Bench Colorado is citing a host of decisions in seeking to oust the full slate of justices on the ballot there, urging voters, “Be a citizen, not a subject.”
It goes on to point out that the laws many of them were using were designed to remove corrupt or incompetent judges but are now being used to send a message that judges who do not adhere to certain views will be kicked out of office.
It also points out that there is big money involved, with the campaigns being underwritten by corporate interests and wealthy Christian groups.
But they forgot to connect the dots in this story. Do you notice something that all these cases around the country have in common? Yes, I knew that you could -- they are all being waged by right wingers. This "trend" is decidedly one-sided, run by a minority faction in America who have decided that their interpretation of the laws and the constitution will be imposed upon everyone.
Far be it for me to suggest that intimidating judges and replacing ones you don't like with social conservatives might be just a little bit theocratic and surely nobody can believe thatcorporate sponsored removal campaigns are designed to make it impossible for moderate or conservative judges to compete against business friendly judges. It would be very impolite to point any of that out, which is why, I'm sure that the New York Times didn't bother to do it.
They simply left some little hints for the discerning reader to sift through:
Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, which has spent $230,000 on television ads criticizing the Iowa judges, said he understood that removing the three judges would not change the same-sex marriage ruling. (It was a unanimous ruling by the state’s seven justices.) But Mr. Brown said he hoped the judges’ ouster would help prevent similar rulings elsewhere by making judges around the nation aware that their jobs are on the line.
“It sends a powerful message,” he said, “That if justices go outside the bounds of their oaths, if the justices go outside the bounds of the U.S. and state constitutions they’re going to be held accountable.”
Bob Vander Plaats, who made opposition to same-sex marriage a centerpiece of his unsuccessful run for governor in Iowa, is leading the ouster campaign on behalf of the political arm of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian organization based in Tupelo, Miss.
“My bigger fear isn’t about injecting politics into judicial retention elections. The bigger fear is that we don’t hold them in check,” he said, warning that gun and property rights could be at risk.
Make of that what you will dear reader. But never say that the NY Times stooped to the level of shrill bloggers who suggest that the far right might have a radical agenda. Let no one say that the old Gray Lady is anything but well mannered.
.
digby 9/25/2010 09:00:00 AM
|
robert shumake detroit
robert shumake hall of shame
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 19, 2010 at 7:59am. image Yesterday we noted that “Newsweek” has released its list of ...
The openSUSE Build Service 2.1 released - openSUSE <b>News</b>
This iteration has enhanced the web user interface of openSUSE Build Service with features that were previously only in the osc command line client. It now allows submitting of packages to other projects, showing a history of changes ...
ABC <b>News</b> Exclusive: Tea Party Candidate in Nevada Senate May Tip <b>...</b>
Scott Ashjian calls himself the “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate for US Senate, but he tells ABC News that he would be “at peace” knowing he helped re-elect Harry Reid by siphoning votes away from Sharron Angle. The Note, authored by ABC ...
robert shumake twitter
robert shumake twitter
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 19, 2010 at 7:59am. image Yesterday we noted that “Newsweek” has released its list of ...
The openSUSE Build Service 2.1 released - openSUSE <b>News</b>
This iteration has enhanced the web user interface of openSUSE Build Service with features that were previously only in the osc command line client. It now allows submitting of packages to other projects, showing a history of changes ...
ABC <b>News</b> Exclusive: Tea Party Candidate in Nevada Senate May Tip <b>...</b>
Scott Ashjian calls himself the “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate for US Senate, but he tells ABC News that he would be “at peace” knowing he helped re-elect Harry Reid by siphoning votes away from Sharron Angle. The Note, authored by ABC ...
robert shumake detroit
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 19, 2010 at 7:59am. image Yesterday we noted that “Newsweek” has released its list of ...
The openSUSE Build Service 2.1 released - openSUSE <b>News</b>
This iteration has enhanced the web user interface of openSUSE Build Service with features that were previously only in the osc command line client. It now allows submitting of packages to other projects, showing a history of changes ...
ABC <b>News</b> Exclusive: Tea Party Candidate in Nevada Senate May Tip <b>...</b>
Scott Ashjian calls himself the “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate for US Senate, but he tells ABC News that he would be “at peace” knowing he helped re-elect Harry Reid by siphoning votes away from Sharron Angle. The Note, authored by ABC ...
robert shumake twitter
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 19, 2010 at 7:59am. image Yesterday we noted that “Newsweek” has released its list of ...
The openSUSE Build Service 2.1 released - openSUSE <b>News</b>
This iteration has enhanced the web user interface of openSUSE Build Service with features that were previously only in the osc command line client. It now allows submitting of packages to other projects, showing a history of changes ...
ABC <b>News</b> Exclusive: Tea Party Candidate in Nevada Senate May Tip <b>...</b>
Scott Ashjian calls himself the “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate for US Senate, but he tells ABC News that he would be “at peace” knowing he helped re-elect Harry Reid by siphoning votes away from Sharron Angle. The Note, authored by ABC ...
how to lose weight fast robert shumake twitter
robert shumake hall of shame
robert shumake detroit
robert shumake hall of shame
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 19, 2010 at 7:59am. image Yesterday we noted that “Newsweek” has released its list of ...
The openSUSE Build Service 2.1 released - openSUSE <b>News</b>
This iteration has enhanced the web user interface of openSUSE Build Service with features that were previously only in the osc command line client. It now allows submitting of packages to other projects, showing a history of changes ...
ABC <b>News</b> Exclusive: Tea Party Candidate in Nevada Senate May Tip <b>...</b>
Scott Ashjian calls himself the “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate for US Senate, but he tells ABC News that he would be “at peace” knowing he helped re-elect Harry Reid by siphoning votes away from Sharron Angle. The Note, authored by ABC ...
robert shumake detroit
Last summer, before I took full advantage of the benefits provided by e-mail filtering and multiple accounts, I was getting a ton of daily SPAM (I still get a ton of SPAM, only now it goes where it should: into its own dedicated e-mail account). Much of this unsolicited e-mail had to do with achieving wealth over the internet, usually effortlessly - a concept I had always summarily dismissed. But one day, all booted up with no place to go, I decided to take a trip into internet money-making land just to see where it would lead. Though I can identify, and know the pitfalls of a sexy come-on when I read one, I've never been averse to making money. So I set out on a crash course of making money online, starting with Google. I entered that exact phrase, "making money online", and got some 15 million results. Wow, I thought. Either I wasn’t the only one with time on my hands, or something about this concept was sucking people in. Eventually, I would click my way to an online world that I had no clue even existed. And I spend a lot of time online.
In the days and months that followed, I became intrigued with one online money making venture that had gained phenomenonal popularity: HYIPs, or “High Yield Investment Plans”. In retrospect, HYIPs had probably reached their peak right about the time I learned of them. Chances are you're familiar with the phrase, "High Yield Investment Plan." Perhaps you've seen it while skimming a prospectus or some other form of investment literature. For the record, legitimate high yield, short term investments do exist, and they are a totally different animal from what I'm talking about.
HYIPs - the acronym is pronounced, ironically, just the way you think - are tailor-made for our Right Here, Right Now generation. That's right. One of the many things the World Wide Web has brought us is the expectation of instant access. We want our information, our relationships, and our wealth at the click of a mouse. HYIPs provide this immediacy by giving you the ability to watch your money grow exponentially, incredibly, and even better, daily - online.
That is, assuming everything goes according to plan. Frequently it does not, however, and that's when many a starry eyed wealth builder runs into trouble. Fortunately, I happen to be more parts cynic than idealist, so it didn’t take a great deal of sleuthing to find that these are essentially thinly disguised ponzi schemes - which, according to the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, are illegal.
Simply by virtue of the way they are structured, even the best run ponzis are destined to fail because in order for someone to win, someone else has to lose. It is also important to note that the fact that there may or may not be deception involved about the nature of a ponzi (false claims of investing in goods or services) makes it no less illegal.
Step right up...
The infamous scheme named after Carlo Ponzi was first launched in 1920 to great success. Brilliant in its simplicity, it worked on a simple premise: get people to invest in a nonexistent product or service, promise an outrageous return after a specified number of days or weeks, and use the money from new investors to pay off old investors who cash out. Ponzi’s plan did have one fatal flaw, though. When new money stopped coming in at a rate sufficient to pay out people who wanted to withdraw, the cycle collapsed. This was inevitable, for the simple reason that no investment vehicle can have a steady inflow of new investors forever; if for no other reason than the fact that the Earth's population is not infinite. But here's a funny thing about human nature: Where money is involved, it is not highly unusual to see ethics and common sense take a flying leap. What this means is that people may be aware that they are building their dreams on a house of cards, but will tend to ignore that fact and take their chances until they’ve been burned themselves.
This is the reason countless variations of Ponzi's scheme have been able to proliferate for nearly a century after his death. From day one, there has never been any shortage of dreamers and schemers in the world. And conveniently, the World Wide Web has given them all one huge playground in which to romp.
The blueprint...
The way a HYIP works is as follows: Using an online payment processor, you make a “spend”, or a deposit, into the plan of your choice. Generally, there will be a variety of plans, all displayed on the home page of the program (In November 2005, a typical HYIP offered plans ranging from 35% profit after four days, to 450% or more after 10 days). After your plan has matured, you have the choice of either withdrawing the money or rolling it over into another plan. By the way, if you are thinking four or 10 days is a very short time for an investment, I want to reiterate that there are no similarities between the way a HYIP operates and the way a stock, mutual fund, or certificate of deposit does, so throw out that whole paradigm. The only common element is that with all of them, you hope to eventually take more money out than you put in.
The potential returns are mind boggling. Enough to make many take the plunge, ponzi or not.
HYIPs are run by an administrator, or “Admin“. This would be anyone who woke up one morning, bought a template, or script off the web, and decided to start one up. The lifespan of a HYIP can range anywhere from a few hours to several months, depending upon how quickly it runs into problems. The main reason for the demise of a HYIP is always money. Because they act on Ponzi’s Principle, once the withdrawals start exceeding deposits, you can kiss the program goodbye, along with your money.
Also, since these are businesses run almost exclusively over the Internet, other problems can come into play that don’t even involve a faulty business model. Databases can be hacked, money stolen. More than one HYIP has been permanently disabled when the admin’s payment processor account - the one that holds all the money - was emptied because a security vulnerability in the script was exploited. Or so many an admin has claimed. The hacker alibi has been used so often as the reason for a HYIP’s demise that members have reasonably speculated as to whether or not an Admin simply ran off with all the cash before it had a chance to die of its own accord. And members have also had the unpleasant experience of discovering their own payment processor accounts were hacked. You can never be certain as to why a HYIP collapses, just that it will.
Trust me...
Admins frequently make posts on message and discussion boards devoted to the subject of online investing, and, early in a program, will work to gain the trust of online speculators by cultivating an image of accessibility, honesty, and program transparency. They encourage people to make spends into programs they have just started. An admin may have other people assisting her in this regard, people who will regularly make posts about how excellent the program is and attesting to the admin’s good character. Recently, many HYIPs have attempted an image makeover: they now define themselves as “games” or "programs" rather than investments. You are a “member” making a “spend” into said “game” or "program". There are a couple of reasons for this: 1) The Securities and Exchange Commission requires that one have a license to sell securities and generally speaking, HYIP administrators do not. A typical admin may never have even bought a share of stock in his life, let alone possessed a Series 7 license. An admin could be your barber, your babysitter, or a barber or babysitter in another country. 2) By stating that it is a game, this supposedly eliminates the obligation on an admin’s part to disclose how your money is being “invested” (Some still, however, will claim that at least a portion of member spends are being invested in the forex market, though I have not found a single instance where that could be verified). Again, such simplistic nods to disclosure do not provide a safe haven for these schemes under the law. "Robbing Peter to pay Paul" is not a legally viable foundation upon which to build a business.
If you wander to the discussion board of any HYIP - and there are hundreds of them, though decidedly fewer than just six months ago - chances are you will find several lively threads debating the merits of “xyz HYIP” and whether or not the Admin is a scamster. This discussion becomes most lively when payments start to slow, as that is a clear indication that the clock is running out on that program. But sometimes there is no forewarning at all; the program just vanishes. You find out by reading an apologetic note posted on the website by the admin: “Sorry. Hackers kept getting in my back office. I tried to keep this going as long as I could…” or something equally succinct.
Occasionally, there will also be a promise to refund those who had active spends or were due money when the program ended. Then again, sometimes there won't, and you will never "see" that admin on the internet again, at least under the same handle. In the end it doesn’t matter, though, because even if promises were made, they will likely not be kept. Assuming the admin didn’t outright rip everyone off and, indeed, could be trusted, the program ran out of money because that's what happens. As a result, there are better-than-average odds that you will never see a refund of any money you lost. Seriously. If you think I’m being redundant, I could point you right now to discussion boards of HYIPs that folded months ago, and you will find people posting who still believe they will be paid. They are believers, and anyone who disagrees is, to them, a naysayer. Can I get an Amen dot com?
Stuff happens?
If you got burned by a HYIP, then chances are your feelings are, Darn tootin’ it was a Ponzi, and the admin is a bleeping thief (I‘ve cleaned up your feelings for you). You might even be kicking yourself for being so greedy or naïve and have taken a blood oath to stick to Certificates of Deposit from now on. 3% a year may not be much, but you don’t have to worry about the bank president stealing it out of your account and running away to Cancun.
On the other hand, if you think you lost money because you had bad timing, or bad luck, or Mercury was in retrograde; if you believed in the admin, or if you happened to actually be in the money at the time the HYIP went under; if you are convinced that, despite the outcome, the admin ran an excellent program, and he was a stand-up guy... well, I can guarantee you that there is an admin out there right now hoping that you’ll visit her website. And you might want to do that soon, because, as I write this, internet schemes are being investigated with unprecedented vigor by the SEC, and in several cases, the FBI. The outcome of it all will undoubtedly influence how the "game" is played in the future, or if indeed, it will be played at all. Stay tuned.
robert shumake twitter
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 19, 2010 at 7:59am. image Yesterday we noted that “Newsweek” has released its list of ...
The openSUSE Build Service 2.1 released - openSUSE <b>News</b>
This iteration has enhanced the web user interface of openSUSE Build Service with features that were previously only in the osc command line client. It now allows submitting of packages to other projects, showing a history of changes ...
ABC <b>News</b> Exclusive: Tea Party Candidate in Nevada Senate May Tip <b>...</b>
Scott Ashjian calls himself the “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate for US Senate, but he tells ABC News that he would be “at peace” knowing he helped re-elect Harry Reid by siphoning votes away from Sharron Angle. The Note, authored by ABC ...
robert shumake twitter
Macsimum <b>News</b> - Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking
MacsimumNews - Your Leading Apple News Alternative. Apple number 65 on 'Newsweek' environmental ranking. Posted by Dennis Sellers Apple ico Oct 19, 2010 at 7:59am. image Yesterday we noted that “Newsweek” has released its list of ...
The openSUSE Build Service 2.1 released - openSUSE <b>News</b>
This iteration has enhanced the web user interface of openSUSE Build Service with features that were previously only in the osc command line client. It now allows submitting of packages to other projects, showing a history of changes ...
ABC <b>News</b> Exclusive: Tea Party Candidate in Nevada Senate May Tip <b>...</b>
Scott Ashjian calls himself the “Tea Party of Nevada” candidate for US Senate, but he tells ABC News that he would be “at peace” knowing he helped re-elect Harry Reid by siphoning votes away from Sharron Angle. The Note, authored by ABC ...
No comments:
Post a Comment