Copyright granted - Later Revoked?

[shortfork]

I've got a question: can copyright use be granted and later revoked?

Twice I've had folks decide they wanted to participate in my website as contributors.. It was always very clear to them that they would be granted greater exposure for their work, as well as gain press access to various events.. i.e. free and better access than the general public.

In some cases, the contributor even used a camera owned by me to take said photos..

OK.. use granted, copyright printed on most photos to the photographer.

Time rolls on, the contributor decides to move on and after receiving the benefits of being a contributor, exposure, gaining a name for one's self, free access.. .etc etc...

Contributor decides to "revoke" the usage permission initially given for their work done as a contribtor..

Threats made to remove work or they will report to ISP, etc. etc...

Certainly, one could not do this with a book or magazine publisher.. it's out there.. how can permission be "revoked"...

My question is, with a web based publication, is this "revocation" legal and do I have to comply?

Thanks in advance,

Shortz

[hunderdown]

Do you have anything in writing? This is a contractual issue.

If they just said, "yes, you can use them," but didn't specify for how long or under what conditions, then it seems to me that they are within their rights to withdraw permission.

If on the other hand there was a clear agreement that you would give them X and they would give you Y, then you've got a good case.

[Quadrille]

That's right; if there are clear rules, then everyone knows where they stand.

In law, a contributor owns the copyright of their contribution, and they can 'sell' that right, give it away, or at least give you 'license' to use their stuff.

Do a bit of reading around, build a copyright staement, and make the copyright notices on the site link to that page.

In most cases, it's fair to say that contributing gives you a license to reproduce their stuff; then they'd need a fair reason to withdraw.

In all cases, if the terms of publication changed (eg your site start displaying their copy on porn pages), then they'd have a pretty good case to withdraw.

[axgrindr]

I think the title of your post might be a bit misleading. Shouldn't it read "Permission granted - Later Revoked?"
Since the contributors are the copyright holders they are not granting you the copyright but instead they are granting you permission to use their copyrighted work.
You would of course have to check with a lawyer but if you do not have anything in writing, an agreement or a contract, then I'm pretty sure they can ask you to remove their work.
For example, as a copyright holder your contributors have the right to sell their work on an exclusive basis to another party. Once they do this the other party owns the copyright and can ask for any other parties using the work to remove it.
At least this is how I understand the law to work. Our company has many agreements like this with different contributors and we have had to remove copyrighted works when the contributor has sold his rights to someone else.

[BigDave]

Real magazines get everything in writing, with irrevokable contracts.

My big question would be around who posted their material on your website?

If *they* posted the work, you they are the ones that put it into distribution, with the full knowledge that it was going out on your site. Do a search on [implied copyright license]. There is also a doctrine called [estoppel] where they cannot charge you with a infringement when they took actions to encourage that action.

If they provided you with the work and *you* were the one that actually posted it, this might be a little more iffy. It would largely depend on what sort of records you had of the discussions leading up to the posting of the work.

Best advice, check with a IP lawyer. If you have a right ot continue publishing the work, and the copyright holder issues a takedown anyway, you could be in for a very happy week when you get your check from them for filing a false DMCA takedown.

Or the lawyer might tell you that you better take it down after all.

[shortfork]

Thanks... all good information.

I'm reasonably sure, I have the right to continue to display the works created by this contributor. I truthfully do not want to give the person any further exposure, however.. So I'm in the process of removing all of his contributions.

That said, after this episode, I've begun getting it "in writing"!

Relatively unknown talent get the benefit of untold exposure by contributing to my site... I get the benefit of their material. It's a win win thing. When they decide that it's time to move on, that's fine but...

They retain the benefit of the name they have built for themselves, I reserve the right to retain the benefit of the use of the work they contributed while building that name..

Unfortunately, talented people are not always nice people!

Shortz

[crescenta]

I'm reasonably sure, I have the right to continue to display the works created by this contributor.

It's doubtful that you have the right to continue to display the content unless you have it in writing. (As everyone here is saying.)

I truthfully do not want to give the person any further exposure, however.. So I'm in the process of removing all of his contributions.

If that is what he has requested (and if you have no agreement in writing), then this sounds like your only option.

Relatively unknown talent get the benefit of untold exposure by contributing to my site... I get the benefit of their material.

Yeah, it works both ways.

When they decide that it's time to move on, that's fine but...

That's fine. I understand where you are coming from—if you put a lot of effort into presenting others' content to the best advantage, then it's understandable that you would expect some appreciation for that. But still—without their content, your site would be a lot less interesting. There would be less incentive for people to visit.

They retain the benefit of the name they have built for themselves,

The name they built for themselves, because (apparently) the content they created was pretty good. They did that work. They were probably helped (maybe even considerably) through exposure on your site, but the fact still remains that it was their stuff.

I reserve the right to retain the benefit of the use of the work they contributed while building that name..

You already had the use and benefit of their work all this time. I don't know if it's exactly reasonable for you to expect the use of the work for all time.

Look—I may sound like I'm coming down really hard on you, and for all I know, this person is the epitome of ungrateful and you've really busted your behind to promote their work. In which case, sure, I think most of us can understand where you are coming from and agree that this contributor should show a little more appreciation and gratitude for how you have helped him.

But it's just that this tactic is kind of . . . old. "Give me some of your work. I can't pay you, but it will be good promotion for you." Old as the hills, that line is. Sometimes, it's a good deal for both parties. Sometimes it's not really. Sometimes it's just a ploy to exploit eager newbies to give away content for free. I'm absolutely not saying that this is the case with you . . . I really have no idea. But I'm just saying, this is how it happens. A lot.