|Lycos InSite Select Contract|
Recommended Reading: Section 4
| 6:07 pm on Sep 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
The other day I decided to go ahead and submit my site for the Lycos InSite Select service. While completing all the nessesary forms I was eventually ask to agree to their "terms and conditions", so I decided, what the heck, and actually read what I was going to sign to. Luckily I did, the part that left me cold was section 4 which basically gave Lycos FULL AND UNRESITRCTED RIGHTS TO -ALL- OF THE CONTENT OF YOUR WEB SITE INCLUDING "BUT NOT LIMITED TO" TEXT, PICTURES AND SO ON for whatever use they see fit. In other words, they just got the deal of the century by getting me to pay them $30US to own MY content. Here is the wording of the agreement, read it, and then read it again, you will quickly see, they own your content upon clicking that agree button. Am I over reacting or is this scary $hit?
Section of Lycos InSite Select terms and conditions
4.1By You. By making Content available to Lycos pursuant to this Agreement, you grant Lycos a royalty-free, perpetual, nonexclusive, worldwide, unrestricted license to: (a) use, copy, store, modify, transmit, distribute, publicly display, and publicly perform all such Content; and (b) create, for promotional purposes, collective and derivative works that may include some or all of the Content you provide and, for promotional purposes, to use, copy, store, modify, transmit, distribute, publicly, display, and publicly perform the Content you provide and any derivative or collective works containing or derived from the Content you provide.
| 7:13 pm on Sep 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
So the question is, does "caching" your content (as does Google) qualify as "use"?
As I see it, they are asking for the right to
A) Cache the content
B) Right to slice and dice to promote their content, which is your content.
C) Use the content to generate traffic...for the buyer
From a biz-dev stand-point...what am I missing?
They know and understand that all content out there is not able to be wholly granted for these uses.
You pay Lycos, they in turn utilize what you are trying to promote to promote themselves. This increases their big slice of pie. How much of that pie you get is directly proportional to the normal keyword queries X increase in overall volume as a direct impact of their marketing efforts.
Does that help or confuse?
| 7:28 pm on Sep 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
... Not quite.
|unrestricted license to: (a) use, copy, store, modify, transmit, distribute, publicly display, and publicly perform all such Content |
Property rights are hard won. They should not be surrendered so easily and on such a scale.
Granted, Lycos wishes to slice/dice your images for a cache, but this grants them rights totally beyond that.
They should explicitly and narrowly say what specific rights they wish to have and not go whole hog and take EVERYTHING you have created lock, stock and barrel; forever. That's what the word perpetual means.
If I sound alarmed, that's because I am.
It's analogous to agreeing to give a homeless a quarter, and the homeless instead takes your wallet, your wife and your clothes.
I am going to contact the Graphic Artists Guild and alert them to this incredible property grab.
[edited by: martinibuster at 7:40 pm (utc) on Sep. 19, 2002]
| 7:31 pm on Sep 19, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Interesting, but my interpretation of that license is that you have granted them a non-exclusive perpetual license to use your content in any commercial manner they please.
For example, if I run a joke site (which I do) and I spent the past 5 years collecting a rather comprehensive collection of jokes, and I register with InSite, it permits them full rights to take all of that content, and start a Jokes section in Lycos utilizing my joke content in part or whole. This may be a rather extreme example, but my point is, that is what you are AGREEING to in the contract. Tell me what part of section 4 states in contrary to this?
By using words like, ANY, PERPETUAL and USE in reference to the ability to use your content, it is really granting them such abilities in my view. Again, I may be looking too deeply into it, but I do not see the need for such an in-depth, comprehensive rights to content clause in the agreement for what you described. For me its cause for alarm.
| 5:12 pm on Sep 21, 2002 (gmt 0)|
Wow.. I just signed up with Insight and read this thread.. that's scandelous.. Anybody know any jouranlists or lawyers... I'm sure a journo would make a good news story out of this, and an IP lawyer would probably have a field day :-)