CopyrightTrap is really a trap for authors to become aware of, to help them not getting ripped off by third parties in an unnoticed way. The organizations don't steal. They write it explicitely in their TOS. So it is not a theft. It is a trap, that can be avoided, if there is enough awareness. -- FridemarPache
Can somebody please check http://skitch.com/ToS, (which looks to be a very attractive service for the community) ?
I was just on the go to subscribe, but found the following surprising text in their Terms of Service:
E. By submitting ideas, suggestions, documents, and/or proposals (“Contributions”) to plasq through its suggestion, feedback or contact webpages, via email, by other means of communication, you acknowledge and agree that:
1. your Contributions do not contain confidential or proprietary information;
2. plasq is not under any obligation of confidentiality, express or implied, with respect to the Contributions;
3. plasq is entitled to use or disclose (or choose not to use or disclose) such Contributions for any purpose, in any way, in any media worldwide;
4. plasq may have something similar to the Contributions already under consideration or in development;
5. your Contributions automatically become the property of plasq without any obligation of plasq to you; and ..
Emphasized by the author
Please help me to understand, if this is fair (use) ?
This sounds like GodKingCopyright to me, and a fairly bad one since it could be read to add (1) and (2) to the basic GodKingCopyright pattern. I'd avoid it. -- NathanielThurston
I would also avoid it. It reminds me of the recent Facebook dramas and superficially the website sounds like a stock image harvester. -- AaronPoeze
Note: To find common ground in the above definition, what about redefining CopyrightTrap as a trap, made by different actors with the intent to use work of authors:
It is a kind of polymorphic definition. -- FridemarPache
Type A looks more like a WaterMark?. -- DamianYerrick?