Did the Terms of Service change?

[Kaldeem]

I'm pretty sure this wasn't worded this way when I registered in August of 2014. Anyways, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure when you grant yourself with a "non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use/publish or republish content in connection with the service." That you can say it's still my copyright, but that's just BS, designed to make us passive. Just say that you own all the s*it we post, and call it what it is.

 

[Brambor]

content grab

 

[J.R.]

I'm pretty sure this wasn't worded this way when I registered in August of 2014. Anyways, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure when you grant yourself with a "non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use/publish or republish content in connection with the service." That you can say it's still my copyright, but that's just BS, designed to make us passive. Just say that you own all the s*it we post, and call it what it is.

View attachment 2745

Kaldeem, I don't think that's new. Somewhere here there is a post by Court talking about using photos on the EBR home page, he noted that even though he could use them by the terms and conditions that he would ask/notify us. Fair guy!

It's almost universal on public forums that anything we say can be used against us Even the 1st amendment supporting press can and will use, or not use your words from a letter to the editor as they please. If it weren't like this they couldn't control the content, leave the good and throw away the bad. You aren't protected when you yell FIRE in a crowded theater.

 

[Kaldeem]

@J.R. Yeah I remember Court asking to use photo's and I'm fine with that. I remember reading the original UA, and it wasn't this extensive. Anyways, I'm not worried about "my content" being used or w/e.

I used to be involved in copyright and I'm always leery of 'wording' because that's the only enforceable part UA.

 

[J.R.]

@Kaldeem I bet you are correct, the terms and conditions have evolved