While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Good bot

I was able to do the who is just fine.

Nah, he just means it registered by a domain privacy company, so there's no way to know who really owns it.

“If you use reddit artwork, your company is liable”

Too big too fail? Websites that rely on a community are inherently fragile. It could easily fail if a decent alternative gains traction and people flock to it. Are you sure you know what "too big to fail" means?

If that is not a metaphor I don't know what symbols are

Uhh... you don't.

| If you use reddit at work, your company is liable for any actions you take on reddit.

This seems like the most troubling. Post something we dont like and we can look to get you fired is how I read this.

Bingo

That’s not a thing that exists. At all.

Doesn’t this already happen? If someone posts “I hate [other race or religion or political viewpoint]” on social media and it garners enough negative attention to alert the media, that person’s employer always shitcans that person. I don’t see how it correlates to an anonymous website unless you identify yourself in your profile and the place you work in your posts.

This has nothing to do with reddit or legal ramifications, and if your employer gets your name from reddit posts, that breaks reddit's TOS on doxxing. So whoever doxxed you can be subject to reddit's TOS.

because an anonymous website ain't so anonymous when they run their personality profiles and narrow it down at your work to figure out who you are.

This only really applies if you maliciously DoS attack them from your company server or something, then the company is responsible for not having better security procedures to keep people from doing that.

Yea I’m thrown off at what the big deal is..

Reddit is on its way to being a corporation

Lol wut

Wellp, not posting any original drawings or paintings anymore.

You still own the copyright, but Reddit can republish the material as you presented it on the site. In other words, you have the original and the right to distribute it as you see fit. Reddit gets the jpeg.

they get an IRREVOCABLE license to use it, possibly meaning even if you delete the post.

When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable , non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display Your Content

and sublicensable means possibly for profit.

Irrevocable: Definition A grant of consent to use another’s property that cannot be revoked by the licensor at any time with or without cause.

So how will it work if people post things that are copyrighted by someone else?

They're not taking anything from you.

Except now you are competing with a major media company who also has the right to sell your content.

Who do you think wins that battle?

What does "can make derivatives" mean then? Or are you conveniently ignoring that?

To clarify above you are giving Reddit permission to display your drawings. Moreover, someone is able to crosspost or link to your thread.

If Reddit didn't have that disclaimer then your post with the drawing would have to be removed as they don't have permission to display it.

The "can make derivatives" part is unsettling.

It protects them when they convert your poem into code, and also allows them to crop your shitty meme down and use it in a "how to use reddit" video or something.

Believe me, if there was any threat to monetary security, subs like /r/listentothis would constantly be losing linked content because record labels would be freaking the fuck out to get things off reddit.

It allows them to create the code behind the display, resize it based on the UI like mobile vs display, etc

Man ffs. It's there, their and they're. It isn't that difficult. Make your shit a hell of lot easier to read when it's correct and makes sense.

What comes off as stupid is pretending laws or policies will be used, enforced and continued as you personally feel they will be rather than used, loopholes found, wording twisted and outright manipulated in order for someone to benefit. Because of this, preemptively looking for what could occur is prudent to trying to figure out what someone, Reddit admins or otherwise may do. Reddit has already proven itself to be less than scrupulous and as such, cannot be trusted. Many times posts like yours simply suffer from bias in favor of whatever view you take rather than looking at how laws and policies implemented have already been twisted.

I'm pretty sure anything you post on Instagram is now intellectual property of Instagram. Most websites work like this

hasn't facebook worked this way since, well, it was facebook? Again, if the product is free, you are the product. So yeah, not sure why people are shocked about this.

Hell I work for a fairly unknown company, anything created on company time or even off company time with their equipment they own. It's almost boiler plate anymore. They are sitting on a goldmine of kim possible/doctor who fanfic they don't even know about. And when they do know about it, they are going to transfer that ownership right the fuck back to me.

This seems normal, as people can already get your content

An example: You take and upload a landscape photo. An advertiser wants to use that photo in an ad campaign. Reddit has the right to sell them the use of that photo without your approval and without attributing it to you. They get to make money off your content, and you don't even get the recognition.

What if you are a loyal Republican and the Democrats want to use your photo in one of their ads? You have no say in the matter. You have granted Reddit the right to sell your photo to the Democrats, and you can't stop them.

So you think reddit is claiming they own Game of thrones if someone links to it?

No, and that is a stupid example because Game of Thrones is not "your" Content. If the copyright holders of Game of Thrones uploaded a video of their show to Reddit, then they would be bound by the TOS.

Reddit is claiming a perpetual, irrevocable and nearly unlimited right to use your content if you upload it. They can claim it as their own. They can sell it. They can make derivative works from it. They can do anything the copyright owner can do except prevent you as the copyright owner from also selling it or making derivative works from it.

This is why the copyright owners of Game of Thrones do not upload clips of their show to Reddit - at least not without negotiating a contract that does not grant Reddit these sweeping rights.

An example: You take and upload a landscape photo. An advertiser wants to use that photo in an ad campaign. Reddit has the right to sell them the use of that photo without your approval and without attributing it to you.

No.

I would think yes, since you've waived your right to attribution.

OK, say you're sitting watching TV one day, and you see your photo being used by an ad, specifically for something that's not reddit.

You go online and find the owner of the company advertising and call their head office. You tell them you're the owner of the photograph and have proof, and have granted no rights to use it.

You ask them how they came into possession of your intellectual property. There's two answers: either they acquired it themselves by stealing it directly from the source, or reddit sold it to them.

If they acquired it themselves, they are directly liable for paying the royalties due to you. If reddit sold it to them, reddit is liable for paying the royalties due to you. In both cases this is illegal and you can sue them.

However, by utilizing reddit's hosting you're relinquishing rights to withhold distribution. So people can download, and modify it at will. But any derivative works used for profit are still partially yours and you are entitled to your royalties.

Any failure to attribute copyright material being used for profit, whether accessed for free or not, is illegal. But, the attribution is a financial sense, they don't have to announce to the world that you made the content, they just have to pay you.

You tell them you're the owner of the photograph and have proof, and have granted no rights to use it.

You have granted the right for them to use it:

you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display Your Content

NB "royalty free"

So, you're wrong there.

or reddit sold it to them.

Which you agreed to and gave Reddit the right to do when you agreed to their TOS.

reddit is liable for paying the royalties due to you.

Royalty-free. Wrong again.

you are entitled to your royalties.

Again, the TOS specifically state the derivatives are "royalty-free" . Furthermore, they don't even have to alter it. It specifically states the can "copy" your work, royalty-free.

they just have to pay you.

They dont. And They don't have to attribute it to you.

Reddit assumes that anything you post is creative commons, unless it is linked from a third party site (hence having their own upload engine and control over imgur, by using their tools, they're essentially locking the content into that constraint). If reddit automatically owned linked content, then they would own the better portion of posts to /r/news . They DO NOT have the right to use the content, as provided, by the site being linked. Any usage for profit would compromise them: they'd be stuck in a position owing royalties while simultaneously claiming royalty-free status (creative commons, which is what the better portion of reddit actually is). As such, anything linked through reddit is still bound by the linked site's TOS, reddit simply provides specific rights in its TOS to allow reddit to act as an intermediary when directing traffic to your site. As such, it owes you no royalties as a distributor , and anything that is posted through reddit affiliates is now assumed creative commons. That's why you don't post photos to imgur or reddit that you want to make money on. Post it first to a site that retains your monetary rights, and link it. There's a system for a reason.

Reddit assumes that anything you post is creative common

Where does it say that?

If reddit automatically owned linked content, then they would own the better portion of posts to /r/news .

From the TOS:

By submitting Your Content to the Services, you represent and warrant that you have all rights, power, and authority necessary to grant the rights to Your Content contained within these Terms.

So does someone posting a link to news owe royalties to the site they linked? Why or why not?

they'd be stuck in a position owing royalties while simultaneously claiming royalty-free status

And yet, they've created this position exactly with their TOS.

That's why you don't post photos to imgur or reddit that you want to make money on

So what you're saying is that unless you've added a layer of protection by involving a 3rd party and their profits, Reddit can do exactly what this post is claiming. Also, that the only reason a 3rd party buffer works is because they will challenge the catch-22 of owing royalties yet being exempt you just described... something which would be difficult if not impossible for an individual to do?

Seems to me like you just admitted that's exactly what Reddit is doing.

Imagine knowing a company is fucking you in the ass real good and your reaction being "this is normal stuff" lol

and EA is still a pile of shit

Nevar forget

They are, but it's not exactly a conspiracy. Just stop buying their games and let them die.

[3rd party content] We can spy on you in any way we want

Where in the "Third Party Content" section is this stated or implied in any way? The section simply states that this sort of content is not under Reddit's control and that Reddit can place advertisements like every major website in existence does.

but keep using a bank account and credit cards by all means, it's almost like they completely forget that every single thing they do is tracked for advertising purposes but it will bother them when they need to feel outraged.

If you're one to worry about privacy in terms of your welath switch to bitcoin, no bank or middleman has anything on you or can control your funds.

Yes, because bitcoin is accepted at so many places, very stable and extremely practical. smh

How about be apart of the solution and help getting it adopted instead of complaining and doing nothing about it. smh

Adopted by who? It will never happen. Anyone who thinks it will, reads way too much about why they should be hyped up over cryptos and not about the legitimate banking systems around the world.

No person in their right mind would take their money out of the bank and put it into bitcoin, so they don't have to deal with banks other things. Instead you're dealing with exchanges that can't agree on the value of bitcoin together.

The more I read your comments the more I realize people like you are the problem, be supportive, help generate new ideas, work together with others, this technology has the potential to change the way we see money and finances as a whole, in my opinion people like you should be more open minded instead of being so negative, nobody is forcing you to invest in Bitcoin but don't shit on everybody else who's trying to make it work and love it.

Ok. That's your opinion dude. I'm not the problem. The problem is you need other people to buy Bitcoin for your own financial security in regards to Bitcoin. The problem is that it's a pyramid scheme and you need to tell people that they must buy in and if they talk shit it, then they're trash to you. You just sound like a bitter, manipulative person.

"ok. That's your opinion dude." Yes that's exactly what I said in my opinion people like you are the problem, I know what Bitcoin can do and I understand the potential, I'm not trying to force anyone into buying Bitcoin, but what bothers me is when people like you shit talk Bitcoin when it's still under development, constructive criticism and ideas are welcome, negativity from people like you is not.

Here's what Bitcoin can do: drop from 18,000 to 8,500 in how many months? I'll you answer that one. Hint: far less than a year. Who were these idiot "experts" and economists from all these publications saying the price would top 20,000 by the end of 2018? That didn't go well to say the least, no?

People just like you (literally spewing the same talking points from the articles you read from "experts") focus on trying to sell the dream of what btc could do...but it donit for your own financial interests. Because the more people who pull out...that's not good for you, right?

You are a living advertisement. That is what btc shills have relegated themselves to being.

I love watching the crypto pyramid schemes fail. Uncontrollable cryptos, with exchanges that can't agree on prices, over 400 other cryptos. All going under one by one.

Mate, tell me what causes btc price to go up and how does it make an entity money? Not how does make holders money. To make it simple : what is btc built on and how does the price go up without creating or funding something? It's not like a legitimate stock that builds or detracts from a company.

Dude there's not even 400 national currencies on the planet. Yet the whole world agrees on defined, national currency rates. Then look at crypto prices. Out of control and no exchanges are able align their prices together, second by second. And this is why crpytos will never go anywhere in a formal fashion. Cryptos came around 50 years too late. If computers existed at the time that could handle crypto stuff, then things could've gone somewhere. But if you think dishevelled crypto currencies are going to beat big business, Globalism (most notably Globalism) and any major bank in the first world...you are wasting time, attention and money. I've been watching the fanboy wagon shit ever since btc hit 5000. Have a degree in economics. I'm no fool.

Try not to focus on the value, you need to step back and realize the technology behind Bitcoin, I understand if you're an economist or trader you want to make as much money as you can or decipher the charts but you cannot deny the naked facts that Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system and can bring power to the people in handling their own finances uncontrolled by third parties, just because a lot of people only focus on the value does not mean it is not useful or the technology isn't there.

There is this, however:

When accessing or using our Services, you will not:

...

Use the Services to harvest, collect, gather or assemble information or data regarding the Services or users of the Services except as permitted in these Terms or in a separate agreement with Reddit;

I don't get it are you afraid some brilliant comment you make on reddit is going to get stolen?

I believe what OP is trying to explain is corporates are literally attempting to control our thoughts.

Nope.

Wow great argument you sure convinced me

You’re the one who thinks that “corporations,” whatever you seem to think that means, have the ability to mind control people.

I don’t need an argument to disagree with that.

I didnt make that argument, i just pointed out sarcastically that your one word argument was weak and stupid. What does it mean when they said they can make derivatives of your content? :)

Sele is young and is on a mission to own this post now, it seems. He is upset that masturbates_ur_dad showed him exactly why he doesn't know what he is talking about and that this is much bigger than his 18 year old brain can muster.

Foolish to debate him.....he has a post above this with 200+ upvotes.....he is "correct" just by default now.

Aw, this is just kinda sad. You can’t actually rebut me, so you circlejerk people who attempt to go after me.

Youre in the wrong place. Just fall in line and get with it. Im not saying, what you probably think im saying; "circlejerk and agree with us" If you disagree, putting your foot down only makes you look ignorant. You havent rebutted anyone and you want one from someone else? Not worth the effort, just like you didnt take the effort

I think you've already been rebutted.

I'm with you

One day you'll look back, remember this, and be disappointed in yourself. It'll be fleeting, but it is what it is.

Lol no.

Keep responding.

Ill make that argument. Large corporations can easily hire a bright brain in psychology and use subtle manipulations on us. Especially if youre unaware of what exactly is happening. They know this too and will do their best to misdirect attention to what they want you to see. If youre looking, youre being manipulated. Im not trying to say those that get manipulated are dumb at all. Im saying theyve found loopholes in our human psyche and exploit them

Is it only comments? If I submit a youtube video to r/videos, does that mean i automatically grant reddit a non exclusive license?

There are some amazing comments and threads on Reddit with plenty of value. Yes, the majority or Reddit has become trash tier circlejerking and meme-ing, yet the valuable comments and insights are still there. Not to mention places like /r/WritingPrompts where the entirety of the content is in the text post of comments and nothing is linked externally.

If this interpretation of the new Reddit Terms of Service is correct, then this content belongs to Reddit once it is posted here and not the rightful intellectual owners (the users that make the comments/threads).

It is absolute not correct, I have no idea how he came to the insane jumps that he did, and I hope you read it more critically yourself (along with everyone else here) and use actual legal information which is all over the internet to aid you. As it is OP got some neat karma and drama out of it, or he just happened to be wrong in so many ways.

/r/topmindsofreddit

I got 7x gilded for a comment the other day. Now reddit might claim they wrote it? This is literally the worst thing to ever happen to humanity.

The drama of it all

None of this is surprising

I admire your chutzpah but this all seems like a big, fat nothing burger. I figured Reddit was doing all the stuff you mentioned anyway. Can you please lay it out for me in plain words how these changes benefit corporations? To me, it seems like Reddit wants to be regarded in the same vein as other social networking sites; for instance, when a newscaster says, “some random person made this comment on Twitter,” he’ll now be able to say “this user posted this meme on Reddit.” Reddit is a business like any other and the necessary amenities of being a front runner of the social networking industry have overhead. They’ve started to implement advertisements between posts and this is just another measure to increase profit margins. In several years you might see on the back of a box of cereal the Facebook f, the Twitter bird, the Snapchat camera, and now the Reddit... uhh, whatever their mascot is. If you thought that Reddit didn’t use or didn’t have a means to filter artificially intelligent shills for means of promoting corporate sponsorship or denying some conspiracies or propagating false ones before it was implicitly or explicitly stated in their terms of service, you are a fool. The internet has been being used by corporations, crooked politicians, and swarthy bureaucrats for nefarious ends probably since its inception and I don’t understand why a subscriber to r/conspiracy is at all surprised by this information being laid out in the open or hidden behind a wall of text in a ToS.

The only way this could be abused is if Reddit uses our data and IP addresses to track us down and report us to the companies we work for. Simply for posting anonymously to an internet board.

Which I already believe is illegal for a company to do. Collecting information to blackmail an individual with the intention of destroying their lives over online conversations. Would love to see how a jury would side with that court case.

Isn't that called doxxing?

So does that mean if they were already doing this (or any of this) all along and never wrote it in their user agreement then they were acting out of their legal bounds, were they illegally misusing reddit data prior to their New terms of use?Just like we have seen FB, &Twitter being accused of?? Hmmm...

Nope. For several reasons:

1) this isn’t new information, most of it was already there

2) A new EU law requires them to provide tools for the “right to be forgotten” and delete all your data.

3) neither FB nor Twitter have done that

And here we see r/conspiracy willing to fight to the death over the myth of the jewish cabal but when discussing actual real credible threats to their freedom we get

"eh.."

Except this isn’t. Just a really bad misreading of legal documents by people who don’t understand the law.

Not surprising. Everything gets sold out for money's now. We need a natural disaster so big it removes our centering around money's. So fkn dumb. Only then will things keep their essence

*monies, fyi

"This is the darkest hour" lmao really? This is your darkest hour? This?

Hey man, this is our generations Normandy invasion. I guess.

I was joking, you are nuts.

You are so very, very sad.

Fuck you. At least someone cares enough to advocate and inform about potential privacy issues. Go choke on a cock.

Noooo Reddit come back lol

The darkest hour is when everyone follows his instructions and delete their old content from reddit. It's like a suicide but with community deletion instead of death.

Well I'd like to take this opportunity to say that we at Reddit fully endorse apartheid...

...Also Thanos did nothing wrong.

I think this really comes down to reddit trying to cover it's own ass with this net neutrality shit happening. Just like craigslist removing the personal section.

I wouldnt be surprised if someone tries to create something like the personals on reddit ( maybe someone from a country other than the USA) and gets the whole site pulled off line.

It’s about GDPR which is a new privacy law in the EU that impacts any website that gets traffic from the EU. you can get fined a ton of money for not complying.

The net neutrality repeal was overturned. I was watching it the other day, the Senate voted 52-48 if I remember it correctly.

that’s the senate only so far... the vote still has to go through the house to fully repeal

And past the president. It could clear the house and the president could still veto

Is it only comments? If I submit a youtube video to r/videos, does that mean i automatically grant reddit a non exclusive license?

commenting for a later read.

Wow. You managed to make a huge post without actually knowing anything about what you’re saying. Please, stop trying to explain legal documents now. You’ve completely failed in your understanding of it.

The fact is that no, Reddit doesn’t own your IP. Further, they don’t say they can spy on you, and sending you malicious files is still hilariously illegal, and they don’t say they can or will do so.

They can ban you for whatever they like. That’s their right as a “corporation,” which you seem terrified of for no reason. Nothing new there.

No, they can’t claim to be you, including by using your username, but they can use anything you post on the site. Nothing new there.

They own the site, so yes, they can use bots or sell accounts. However, selling yours they cannot continue to pretend to be you. Still not new.

I don’t even know what you mean by “hijack video content,” but they can’t take other people’s content and claim it, and if you post someone else’s content they can still have it taken down, but if you post your own content, you’re granting them a license to use it.

Your company isn’t liable, that’s not how liability works.

Please, do read the TOS. You’re hilariously wrong about what it says.

...but they can use anything you post on the site.

Just curious - so if someone posts a short story on r/writingprompts or an insightful article to any sub that is relevant for such an article - Reddit can claim ownership of such content? Basically by posting any article here (even if for example, it is also posted on your website), you give Reddit legal rights to use your content?

The new TOS is very vague you see, so there are plenty of possible interpretations. I myself am not a lawyer and don't have an in-depth knowledge on how this TOS can be interpreted in a legal framework. Thus I admit I do not know for sure how these terms work in practice.

If you or any other user here has a background in Law, I'd be very interested in a more in-depth explanation.

No, if you post a story on r/writingprompts you have granted Reddit a license to display that content. They can use it for that purpose, as well as whatever anyone else who views it can do. They cannot claim ownership of your content. That’d be a huge breach of IP law. The only case where that wouldn’t be true would be if you’re a Reddit employee, and you posted content on the site during work time.

Posting something on Reddit (or Facebook/Twitter/instagram/MySpace) doesn’t give the platform ownership of the content, just a license to it. If I put a photo of a friend on Facebook, I still own the photo, not Facebook. But Facebook has a right to display that photo (and facebook’s also trying to get the ok to use it in ads, but that’s irrelevant to this conversation) unless I remove it.

IANAL, but I have a basic understanding of copyright law due to the nature of my job.

Thank you for this clear-headedness. I figured the update to TOS wasn't anything major (kill your first born) and was hoping to find someone to explain these items with clarity.

Unfortunately they're absolutely dead fucking wrong.

Posting something on Reddit (or Facebook/Twitter/instagram/MySpace) doesn’t give the platform ownership of the content, just a license to it

Let's say you make a drawing. I say that you can hang it in my art gallery, but if you do, I get [insert reddit's new TOS here].

The TOS I made you sign does not just cover my ability to display your art in my gallery, as the ignorant OP is asserting. It provides me an irrevocable, perpetual license to use it or adapt IP based on it with no attribution to you.

That means I can put it in a book, I can base a show around it, I can make a movie in its art style - whatever I want.

I don't know how OP is reading the TOS and coming to the conclusions that they are. They're not a lawyer, but this isn't exactly complex stuff. It's plain language.

The TOS I made you sign does not just cover my ability to display your art in my gallery, as the ignorant OP is asserting. It provides me an irrevocable, perpetual license to use it or adapt IP based on it with no attribution to you.

Sign?

Where?

"Ignorant", in this case is very apropos... just need to apply it to the right person.

Sign?

Where?

You do realize that it was a hypothetical and I'm not actually an art gallery owner, right?

No.

I realize you is one ignant mofo.

Thanks for the explanation :) I do hope this is indeed how it works.

IANAL

LOL that made me laugh, I've never seen that one before. I'm assuming that means 'I Am Not A Lawyer' but still, that abbreviation lmao

If you browse legal advice you get it a lot.

... Anal?

chortle

So iANAL isn't Apple's latest product?

If I post a nice nature photo can’t reddit use that in its advertising since I posted it to the site?

That’s the only part that’s more unclear.

Are you sure that's the only unclear part? The answer is: Ya, they can use the photo

Not only that, they can sub-licence its use to a 3rd party "partner" without even giving you attribution.

This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit. You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content.

You grant Reddit a permanent license to sell, display, or otherwise distribute your content and waive any claim against Reddit for them doing so.

This TOS basically amounts to you granting ownership rights over your content to Reddit. As far as I can see, the only thing you haven't given up is your right to also sell, display or otherwise distribute your content.

But good luck competing with Reddit to sell your content.

TLDR; they can but they won't.

I believe that you're right. Reddit can potentiallu take your content, remove metadata that would identify it ad your work, and do pretty much whatever they wanted woth it. The TOS makes that pretty clear, but as others have pointed out, it's pretty standard language for any social media company these days. Its just the companies covering their asses. Those teams of lawyers they pay millions and millions of dollars are bound by their dutu to peotwct their client, and the insane length and complexity of TOS agreements isnt so much a sinister conspiracy as it is a natural outgrowth of an increasingly litigious society.

But I think the more important point here is that these companies don't do many of the things that OP seems to be losing their mind over. And it is obvious why: if they did, they would alienate soooo many of their users, and tarnish their broader reputation so badly, that it would just never be worth it.

Imagine if Reddit published a book called u/RamsesThePigeon: Tales from the Mind of a Mad Bird, and gave zero credit to Ramses - maybe even going so far as to delete his account and ban his IP so he couldn't keep posting. Can you imagine the backlash? The pure fury of the Reddit rage machine coming to life like a tiger on meth? It would be ugly, and maybe I'm off, but my guess is a move like that would be the end of Reddit as we know it.

Even something like Reddit selling images from r/EarthPorn to somw calendar company would provoke a ton of ill will, and all those great photographers would simply stop posting here.

Now that's not to say that they aren't profiting off of your content in other ways. Of course they are. But OP is claiming that the sky is falling, and Reddit now fully owns all your IP and is going to be publishing it themselves and cutting you out of the deal. That's just alarmist bullshit imho.

But technically you are right, and the other users who are saying Reddit couldn't sell your content if they really wanted to, are wrong.

Since this thread is dominated by someone pretending to know what they're talking about, I'll give you a real answer.

Yes, if you post a nice nature photo on reddit, they can use it in their advertising. It's not unclear at all (I'm not directing that at your for asking the question, but rather the other person).

Actually writing also gives you copyright protection no?

They cannot claim ownership of your content. That’d be a huge breach of IP law.

That is true, they can't claim ownership - what they can claim is a perpetual (which means forever), irrevocable (which means it can't be taken away from them) license to use your work any way they see fit, including selling it. You also give up your right to have your content attributed to you as the author of the work.

Essentially, you grant Reddit a permanent license to act as if they own your content.

Not quite. It’s revocable if you take it off the site. Anything else would be a violation of the new EU law.

EU law, sure. And since I do live in Europe that does apply to me as well. But what about the rest of the world?

It’s easier on the backend to just have one standard.

Not when it comes to profiting of of other peoples work.

But that’s the opposite of what I said.

Not quite. It’s revocable if you take it off the site. Anything else would be a violation of the new EU law.

It IS irrevocable in the US.

I'd like to see a link to "the new EU law" you're talking about.

https://www.eugdpr.org/

It hardly makes sense for it to be irrevocable in the US given that the legal language is the same for the EU.

It hardly makes sense for it to be irrevocable in the US given that the legal language is the same for the EU.

If you understood how law applies across differing jurisdictions, you'd know that this is a very simple issue. It's essentially 'void where prohibited,' which is essentially a savings clause.

The strictest reading of the TOS applies, but if a particular term is invalid in a particular jurisdiction, it invalidates that term, not the overall agreement.

It is clearly valid under U.S. law. I believe it's valid under EU law. If you think it's not, you need to do better than referencing a massive set of regulations as if their existence proves your point.

Except that you’re flipping it around here. Yes, the strictest rules apply, which means that the TOS being rewritten to comply with the EU rules carries over to places not in the EU. Because it’s rewritten to be valid under EU rules and doesn’t appear to not be valid under US rules, the strictness from the EU compliance would therefore apply in the US as well.

Okay let me make this really really simple for you.

1) The TOS says that you provide an IP license that is irrevocable and survives the deletion of your account.

2) You say that under EU law, an IP license MUST be revoked upon deletion of the account.

3) You also say that the TOS has been rewritten to comply with EU law.

It's not even a debate about how to interpret EU law, you're literally contradicting yourself. How is the TOS rewritten to comply with EU law when YOU YOURSELF say it has provisions that violate EU law???

Because it’s rewritten to be valid under EU rules and doesn’t appear to not be valid under US rules, the strictness from the EU compliance would therefore apply in the US as well.

Again, that's the opposite of YOUR OWN claim. You're saying those provisions are NOT valid under EU law. You're all over the map here...

it says you give an irrevocable license for anything you post, even if you delete your account, they could possibly interpret this as even if you delete your post, they may still keep it.

That’d be against the law they updated the TOS to follow.

You may terminate these Terms at any time and for any reason by deleting your Account and discontinuing your use of all Services.

.............

The following sections will survive any termination of these Terms or of your Accounts: 4 (Your Content),

That doesn’t change anything about what I said.

I didn't really get what you said, they want people to give them perpetual license to use all content, and that people agree that it wont be deleted even if you delete your account.

Except it will be deleted. That’s the one point. https://www.eugdpr.org/

Yes we are apparently arguing in this post about another issue,

the GDPR is about transparency in handling personal information, I think they may be not considering uploaded data, such as images as a part of this, I have looked through the site.

The discussion here seems to have made people actually start reading the TOS, and find these other things that are questionable, and I do not think neither reddit nor EU considers uploaded content as personal information. Which is why the part in the TOS about the content surviving termination, is in the TOS even in the latest revision.

What GDPR talks about is "Right to be Forgotten: Also known as Data Erasure, the right to be forgotten entitles the data subject to have the data controller erase his/her personal data, cease further dissemination of the data"

The only place they talk about images or photos is about the data derived from processing them, such as facial recognition, not about the storage of the images themselves.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679#d1e2254-1-1

I am a lawyer and your reading of the issue is dead wrong.

No, if you post a story on r/writingprompts you have granted Reddit a license to display that content.

No, as the TOS explicitly states:

When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed. This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit . You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content.

Not that that's complex legalese, but they are saying they have an irrevocable, perpetual license to do whatever they want with your content.

They cannot claim ownership of your content. That’d be a huge breach of IP law.

That's what a fucking service agreement is for in the first place!! By submitting content to the site you are waiving your right of exclusive use of your IP. I'm not sure what you even think you're saying here.

I know it's cool on this sub for the top comments to be aggressively contrarian, but you have no idea what you're talking about and you're attacking them for doing the same thing.

Also, no, if you take the content down from reddit the license to do whatever they want with your content doesn't end. That's what irrevocable means.

Having a basic understanding of copyright law (which it doesn't even seem like you do) is an entirely separate agreement with a TOS agreement that includes IP licensing.

Being wrong is fine, but don't aggressively go after other people for their lack of understanding while you don't know what the fuck you're talking about either.

You might be a lawyer, but I can tell you that you’re not correct here either.

You’re making claims about what I said that I didn’t. Further, you’re ignoring both the rest of the TOS, and the fact that it was edited for the GDPR, the “right to be forgotten” law, which would make Reddit holding onto your IP after you delete your account/remove your information very very illegal in the EU.

waiving your right of exclusive use

And I acknowledged that fact. But the OP claimed that posting on Reddit meant Reddit owns the content, which is what I was refuting.

that’s what irrevocable means

Nope. Once again, the whole point of the edit to the TOS was so that you could delete your account/data and they would no longer have rights to it, due to the new law in the EU.

You might be a lawyer, but I can tell you that you’re not correct here either.

"You may be trained on the subject and have years of professional experience, but my gut still says I'm right."

But the OP claimed that posting on Reddit meant Reddit owns the content, which is what I was refuting.

And your attempt at refuting it was full of total nonsense. Reddit doesn't technically "own" your content, but it's granted a license that confers literally all of the benefits of ownership. You don't seem to understand that.

Nope. Once again, the whole point of the edit to the TOS was so that you could delete your account/data and they would no longer have rights to it, due to the new law in the EU.

This is just such a disingenuous way of arguing. First of all, EU law applies to EU jurisdictions. You're arguing that the OP's reading of the TOS is wrong because it may not apply that way in the EU.

However, OP was completely correct in their interpretation of the TOS for countries outside the EU.

Further, the GDPR protects individuals about data associated with them. It's at the very BEST, unclear how it would apply to an IP license associated with potentially anonymous accounts, as that's not really the data subjects that the GDPR 'right to be forgotten' rules apply to.

However if you have a link that backs up your bold assertions, I'd be interested to read it. My guess is that you don't, and you're still just going with your gut...

It’s hardly my gut to recognize that the EU literally just passed a law that led to many, many sites rewriting and updating their TOS.

Further, depending on your area of practice, odds are that you have hardly more qualifications to speak on this issue than I do.

literally all the benefits of ownership

So they can claim they created it? Use your name? No.

EU law applies to EU jurisdictions

And the TOS was rewritten universally to comply with those EU laws. Do you see my point here? There’s no separate TOS that applies outside the EU, hence the compliance with the law must be within the TOS.

Here’s a good link that discusses information covered by the GDPR. https://www.zdnet.com/article/gdpr-an-executive-guide-to-what-you-need-to-know/

It’s hardly my gut to recognize that the EU literally just passed a law that led to many, many sites rewriting and updating their TOS.

Holy shit, again - referring to the existence of a regulation does not prove that the regulation does what you claim. Please show a source that the EU law applies to IP in this manner.

Further, depending on your area of practice, odds are that you have hardly more qualifications to speak on this issue than I do.

You claimed your knowledge to be a 'basic understanding of copyright law.' I'm pretty sure I'm more qualified.

So they can claim they created it? Use your name? No.

I mean I get that you think you're being clever here, but what point do you think you're making? Benefits of ownership. And yes, they can use your name lol.

And the TOS was rewritten universally to comply with those EU laws.

No, it wasn't. Even your own arguments are the opposite of that. You're saying elements of the TOS don't apply to the EU because they'd be against EU law.

How does that mesh with claiming the TOS was written to comply with EU law?

There’s no separate TOS that applies outside the EU, hence the compliance with the law must be within the TOS.

Jesus christ dude, that's not how it works at all. It's the opposite. The TOS is as broadly written as it can be - if there are particular jurisdictions where some provisions don't apply, that's that.

Reddit is not going to limit their business options in the US by having a universal TOS under EU guidelines.

Here’s a good link that discusses information covered by the GDPR. https://www.zdnet.com/article/gdpr-an-executive-guide-to-what-you-need-to-know/

That article has literally no information on intellectual property. Please stop pretending you know what you're talking about.

Sure.

https://gdpr-info.eu/art-4-gdpr/

personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person;

So no, they cannot use your name.

you’re saying elements of the TOS don’t apply

No, I’m not. That’s your misreading or my lack of clarity. The TOS is written as broadly as possible. However, it was rewritten to comply with the EU guidelines. That TOS is now as broad as can be under the EU rules. Get it?

literally no information

Yes, because photographs aren’t IP. Now I know you’re BSing.

However, it was rewritten to comply with the EU guidelines.

Okay I really don't know how to make it any simpler so let me just ask you:

If it contains provisions that violate EU law (as you say it does with the license that survives deletion), how can it also be written to comply with EU law?

as you say it does with the license that survives deletion

Because I’ve never said it violates the EU law. I said it would if it didn’t allow for that.

You are really confused here.

The new TOS says that even if you delete your account, their license to your submitted content remains.

You say that that violates EU law.

You also say that the new TOS was written to comply with EU law.

Do you not see the issue there?

I agree with the vagueness, but seriously, anything that is on the public domain that is ultimatley managed/owned/operated by a 3rd party is technically owned by them. Don't publish secrets/dreams/money making ideas etc!

Reddits TOS for a few years now has said “we can use your information how we want and for what we want”.

It’s nothing new. I think it’s the whole Facebook thing that has people all worked about what their information is being used for. I know it’s “not right” but it’s not 1998 anymore. The internet has changed. If there is money to be made someone out there will find a way to do it if you like it or not.

How do people expect a content sharing site to work if the site isn't allowed to, you know, share the content you submit?

In other words, how do you think reddit would work if you didn't grant them the right to to show your comments and posts to other people?

The paragraph of legalese around that is extremely standard and reflects all of the creative ways that companies have been sued by people trying to collect royalties for content they voluntarily submitted.

In other words, how do you think reddit would work if you didn't grant them the right to to show your comments and posts to other people?

The TOS goes a hell of a lot further than that.

This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit. You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content.

That section means Reddit can sell your content to a 3rd party without even acknowledging that it is your content. Oh, and once you grant them this license by posting your content to Reddit, it can never be revoked.

They essentially become co-authors of your content and can act as if they own it, with one exception - they can't stop you from selling it to 3rd parties.

While the potential for abuse is certainly there (as I mentioned -- it's there no matter what), I think they would need that language in order to, for example, use a third-party CDN.

My biggest issue with what you cited is the waiver of attribution rights. While I'm not convinced their intent is sinister (vs. just "covering their bases" in a standard, one-sided, corporate terms of use agreement), that certainly seems unnecessary and abusive.

You're wrong.

This TOS explicitly and clearly states that you are providing them a license that includes their ability to produce media/content/shows/books/whatever based on your work.

That has nothing to do with using third party CDN to distribute content.

They already made a book, from iama I think, filled with comments. So that line would be needed for it.

I'm not familiar with the old TOS, but yes, a license would need to be granted. However it can be one of three things:

1) The license was already part of the TOS

2) They got permission from the particular accounts, or

3) The old TOS already granted a license for comments.

The line between comment/content is a big one as far as IP goes. Whether a text submission (such as a writingprompt) is considered to be content or a comment would be an interesting question (that very may well be covered in the TOS already).

How is 1) different from 3)?

I could have written it more clearly. I meant it as:

1) The license to use both submitted content AND comments

3) The license to use comments but NOT submitted content

Reddit has used my original content to produce commercial content, and I have the printed material in my hands to prove it (AskMeAnything, Vol 1.) They still asked permission, though. And sent me a couple of copies for my files as compensation.

I've also seen a number of my reddit posts quoted here and there around the internet and in printed periodicals -- all with the u/allenahansen attribution.

That's pretty cool - mind linking me to the AMA they used, would love to read it!

Do you know if under the old TOS they were required to ask for persmission or if it was more of a goodwill thing?

TBH I'd be surprised if they didn't ask for permission anyway in certain circumstances anyway under the new TOS just due to the bad PR it can create.

The quotes around the internet and in printed periodicals wouldn't ask for permission because they'd be under fair use provisions, which are strengthened with an attribution.

Cool to hear from someone who's dealt with this before - any particular things stood out in your experience?

Here's the AMA .

As I recall, granting permission to use parts of the the AMA was a pretty straightforward process. I was contacted by the admins, gave them written permission, and a few months later they sent me a very nice, professionally published anthology.

The AMA itself generated fair number of other corporate and individual requests for interviews, podcasts, film and TV segments, magazine articles and the like. They generally contacted me through reddit's PM app.

I view my posting on this forum as separate from my professional writing, so unless a request is from some recognizable public entity, I generally make my content available for free anyway.

It occurs to me that adding some disclaimer to the bottom of all of one's reddit posts ("poster reserves all rights of imprimatur" or somesuch) might add some small measure of copyright protection, especially vis a vis original story content or filmic treatment.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Meh, robot. It's long been archived, thus NP anyway.

Very cool, will check it out!

Thanks for the thorough response.

Well, it is a pretty cool story, if I do say so m'self.

You seem to know what you're talking about.

So I've been developing a video game, and I've been posting images of assets, as well as a few downloadable builds, to r/MillikansReach.

What does this TOS change mean for me? Will Reddit gain the rights to my game, even upon its release?

I'd ask this question of the admins-- and save their answer for your records. My guess is that if you copyright your work and reserve a key (Judas) element from what you publish, you'll be okay.

But I'd still consult an intellectual property attorney to be on the safe side.

Alright. How do I ask stuff of the admins?

This is kinda a big deal - I'll try to take your advice, although a proper IP attorney may not be possible. The game dev project itself has zero budget, I don't know how I could possibly hire a lawyer.

https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new?ticket_form_id=73465 Or go to the bottom of the face page on reddit.com and search the options on "contact us".

That’s not true. At all. Removing your content from Reddit revokes that license. And no, they can’t sell it without acknowledgement.

Removing your content from Reddit revokes that license

No, it doesn't.

And no, they can’t sell it without acknowledgement.

Yes, they can.

Jesus christ did you even read the shit you're commenting on or do you think your assumptions about how things work are good enough?

Yes, it does.

Buddy, I’ve got the law that would make anything else illegal right here: https://www.eugdpr.org/

That went into effect and led to all those privacy policy update emails everyone’s getting.

Cool, what provision? Or is this just your gut feeling again about how the law applies?

https://www.zdnet.com/article/gdpr-an-executive-guide-to-what-you-need-to-know/

Based on the data covered.

Based on the data covered.

So no, you are incapable of providing a source. You're just going to continue referencing the existence of regulations themselves.

Even the article you linked to has nothing to do with our discussion.

The types of data considered personal under the legislation include[...] photos.

Lol trying pasting the whole clause there...

They essentially become co-authors of your content and can act as if they own it, with one exception - they can't stop you from selling it to 3rd parties.

Nope, that's not how it works - regardless of the existence of a ToS or not, and irrespective of what it contains, copyright law overrides what le reddit wants.

International Copyright law grants, for such time as is legally defined, ownership of content at the very instant the content is created , if le reddit wanted to buy it, they would need to contract you, with terms and consideration, or buy it from you on a per property or object basis, again with terms and consideration.

That section of the EULA isn't new, it's been the case for years.

Here's an article from 4 years ago when people were scared about reading this in Facebook tos

http://amp.timeinc.net/time/3615271/facebook-privacy-policy-photos

Well that's why you shouldn't write your great American novel through Reddit posts.

Nothing to see here folks, everythibg reddit does is for your own good

Well, it was explained in one of the linked posts (I think it was a comment actually) that reddit seems to use some type of algorithm that re-types whatever you type, so as to render it "their content", as it was technically "not created by you". I am not certain the truth of this statement, but the legal implications seem a bit scetchy. As far as I can see, technically "your content" is not considered "your content", if this be true. Kind of sounds like employee status, minus the pay.

Yeah this guy is not only an annoying writer who doesn't know how to get to the point, but he is also a complete moron.

Haha hahaha Jesus christ reddit. Rid is why I'm done. Good job sir.

FACTS? WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN FACTS!!!!!

Now, now. You take your understanding of legal documents and go somewhere where facts are wanted.

Not surprised. Typical of users in this sub to make a mountain out of a molehill, blow things out of proportion, jump to conclusions, fear monger, speculate, conflate, and use imaginative conjecture.

Wow. You managed to make a huge post without actually knowing anything about what you’re saying. Please, stop trying to explain legal documents now. You’ve completely failed in your understanding of it.

Oh sweet fucking irony. I'm just going to copy/paste my other comment with the hope it gets some visibility and your stupid-ass "analysis" of the new TOS doesn't remain at the top of the thread:

I am a lawyer and your reading of the issue is dead wrong.

No, if you post a story on r/writingprompts you have granted Reddit a license to display that content.

No, as the TOS explicitly states:

When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed .

This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit . You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content.

Not that that's complex legalese, but they are saying they have an irrevocable, perpetual license to do whatever they want with your content.

They cannot claim ownership of your content. That’d be a huge breach of IP law.

That's what a fucking service agreement is for in the first place!! By submitting content to the site you are waiving your right of exclusive use of your IP. I'm not sure what you even think you're saying here.

I know it's cool on this sub for the top comments to be aggressively contrarian, but you have no idea what you're talking about and you're attacking them for doing the same thing.

Also, no, if you take the content down from reddit the license to do whatever they want with your content doesn't end. That's what irrevocable means.

Having a basic understanding of copyright law (which it doesn't even seem like you do) is an entirely separate issue than a TOS agreement that includes IP licensing.

Being wrong is fine, but don't aggressively go after other people for their lack of understanding while you don't know what the fuck you're talking about either.

You don't understand a damn word of that do you?

All of these granted rights are part of making the mechanics of reddit work. In order to display it, it has to first be parsed into code, then compiled as a component of the thread. The way the data is displayed is nothing like the way it's stored, hence, the need to be granted right to display, modify, adapt, and prepare "derivative" works.

As for the right to distribute, publicize, or broadcast, the entire point is to allow corporations like CNN to use your username and posts in their own broadcasts, if they weren't allowed to use reddit information, the whole "incel" issue that came up a few weeks ago would've been much harder for them to report on as they would've had to ask the individual to use their content not reddit.

However, you as the user should realize that by posting to a public forum such as reddit, you are offering up your information to the public on a need-to-access basis. So you shouldn't be surprised when somebody wants to use your data as you're already consuming others' data directly from reddit.

As for the right to distribute, publicize, or broadcast, the entire point is to allow corporations like CNN to use your username and posts in their own broadcasts, if they weren't allowed to use reddit information, the whole "incel" issue that came up a few weeks ago would've been much harder for them to report on as they would've had to ask the individual to use their content not reddit.

That's completely wrong. Those issues would be covered under fair use provisions - this is really really basic IP and First Amendment stuff.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rights being granted in the TOS. It's about rights being given to REDDIT, not CNN or other news organizations. Reddit is the one who can adapt and distribute/prepare derivative works.

CNN already has that right as a news organization under fair use provisions based in the First Amendment. I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that the TOS applies to CNN instead of reddit itself.

Again I'm not sure why people who clearly have no understanding of the law are being so aggressive with their ignorance.

No you're obviously looking way too hard into it. I've taken copyright classes. This is all typical TOS wording. The implications aren't nefarious. Reddit will continue to work as it always has.

However, as always, buyer beware. It's on you to be responsible for your creative content being properly copyrighted. If you are afraid of having your content stolen, don't post.

No you're obviously looking way too hard into it. I've taken copyright classes.

Cool, I also took IP classes back in law school. Now I draft contracts for clients that include different provisions of IP protection and licensing.

This is all typical TOS wording. The implications aren't nefarious.

What exactly are you correcting here? I'm explaining the effect of the TOS, it has nothing to do with being nefarious or not.

If you have an issue with the specific claims I made I'd be interested to see them. Your response here was basically 'no u'

No u!

Sorry, I couldn't help myself when I saw that last bit.

On a more serious note though, how would one properly copyright their IP? Would you have to go through a solicitor or lawyer to say you own said content? Or could it be something simpler like a watermark of sorts?

Back in college we went over copyrighting our original content (the course was for 3D design, which covered an array of things that included 3D designs for games, architecture and the like). We were told that a very basic form of copyright would be to email yourself your work, with possibly a screenshot showing the date and time off the desktop and that this method would prove you had the original idea, design, formula, whatever, with the time and date and could help your case in a court of law if you were being sued for copyright infringement.

I've always thought this method was horseshit and was only really taught to us as a means to prove we did the original work in case anyone straight up copied us. The only way I can see this being practical is if it was an architectural situation - in the sense that if you designed a building or interior, and you found out a competitor somehow got your design exactly, swooped in and got he contract while trying to pass the design off as theirs originally. You could then prove you had the original design because of essentially a timestamp.

Actually the email technique is a pretty good one!

Copyright in the U.S. is automatically conferred when the work is created. That means something tangible (i.e. not the idea of something), so when you write an email and send it to yourself, you're creating timestamped tangible proof of your first in time ownership of the copyright.

Where it gets a bit more confusing is when it comes time to enforce your copyright (which is basically the reason to have it). If someone infringes on your work, you can use your email as proof that you had it first, but in order to sue for infringement in U.S. courts you need to have it registered.

The speed with which you register it (from date of publication, not initial creation) also confers additional benefits such as additional damages.

So basically it's an issue between the existence of a copyright and the ability to enforce one - if you plan on publishing your work, registration is always a good idea. Once somethings in the government registry, it's prima facie (i.e. automatic/definitive) evidence in a court.

So while a good method for initial idea in your IP, it's always best to register.

Guess it was perfect in 'college courts' if someone copied your work and you need to prove its yours.

Thanks for your time!

No problem! You'd be amazed at how many issues of proving first in time have been 'solved' by email.

Upvoted for visibility.

So I just copy pasted this from the TOS:

When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed. This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit. You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content.

Since you have the top comment on this post, and seem to be a lawyer, would you mind explaining some things?

to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works from

What sort of modifications are we talking? What types of adapted, derivitave works are they preparing and why?

This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit

What sort of syndication or broadcasting would they be referring to here?

You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content,

So if I post an mp3 of a song I made, with metadata on it... they can remove the metadata, then copy the song, and broadcast it on an affiliated website without the metadata?

you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content.

So, you've waived your moral rights ?

Wow, moral rights are defined as:

Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works generally recognized in civil law jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, in some common law jurisdictions. They include the right of attribution, the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously, and the right to the integrity of the work.[1] The preserving of the integrity of the work allows the author to object to alteration, distortion, or mutilation of the work that is "prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation".

So Reddit doesn't have to attribute anything they take from you to you, since you've waived that right, and if Reddit decides to twist your work into a perversion you object to, you have no right to object, either.

That seems to directly contradict what you said here:

They cannot claim ownership of your content. That’d be a huge breach of IP law

Since you've waived your rights of attribution and given Reddit the right to remove your metadata, alter your work, and broadcast/distribute it as their own.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 186043}

Lawyer here. Your assumptions are completely correct. OP doesn't have a fucking clue what they're talking about.

Adapted, derivative works means exactly what you think - basically anything. They can produce content based on your work with outside partners with no attribution or royalties owed to you. That means TV, movies, books, etc.

Thank you for the reply.

Would you mind providing legal insight into another question:

the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously

Since by posting to Reddit you waive that right, does that mean that if Reddit has a way of determining your identity, they can publish comments you've made and use your real identity? Can they alter your comments and attribute them to your real identity?

I don't see anything in the TOS that says Reddit has to protect your anonymity.

That's a great question that doesn't have an easy answer yet (as far as I know).

My guess is that that's not their intent here, but rather something generally covered under the umbrella of moral rights, which they're referring to.

There are a lot of issues at play here, including the fact that you don't need to provide any identifying information to reddit in order to create an account.

Let's say that you have an account with no personally identifying information, you're behind a strong VPN, use an anonymous browser, etc. - it would be difficult (both practically and legally) for reddit to find your actual identity.

This clause is more of an escape hatch releasing them of any obligation to attempt to find out who you are before profiting off your work (which would be your moral right).

It going the reverse way where by submitting content you're freeing yourself up to a loss of anonymity associated with an anonymous account?

It's a novel issue, and a very interesting one. My best guess is that it wouldn't provide them the ability to seek out who you are, but it's the type of thing that would have to work its way through the courts.

It would also be a great final exam question in law school lol. You gave me flashbacks.

This is fascinating and a murky area. Thanks for the neutral reply, which some people in this thread seem incapable of.

Maybe not, but couldn't they now just sell your account/IP information to a government agency or 3rd party and let them figure out who you are, eliminating the potential illegality of doing it themselves?

So.... isn't that basically what the OP said we should be worried about? Or am I missing something?

Yes - I meant OP of the comment thread, not the OP of the submission. My bad!

You meant OC not OP

OK, so first, you should see my response above to MASTURBATES_YOUR_DAD to answer the first couple.

If you post an mp3 of a song you made, you're giving similar rights as you would to iTunes to use it in their ads. You still own the creative content rights, as well as the mechanicals for the recording. However, they (Reddit, Inc.) can then take the song, cut it down to 30 seconds, and use it to make a TV ad for reddit or something. If you are a PRO member, they still have to pay your PRO, and you will still receive all the royalties you deserve.

I didn't find your response above very illuminating. Saying that they need the right to create derivative works and not attribute them to you because they have to "convert it to code" doesn't make sense. If you're uploading to Reddit, your picture/song/article is already digital and doesn't need to be "code".

you're giving similar rights as you would to iTunes to use it in their ads

The iTunes TOS don't look anything like this. They won't remove your metadata and make you waive your right of attribution, for one.

If you are a PRO member, they still have to pay your PRO

Not if it's a derivative work, though. And then, seemingly, since you've waived your right to publish anonymously, they can attribute an altered or derivative work to your real world identity.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

They remove the metadata TO PROTECT YOU . If you post a picture and all the metadata is still there, (which includes a LOT scarier information such as full name, phone model, MAC, IP, GPS coordinates, carrier, so on and so forth) somebody can doxx you much, much easier.

They still have to pay for a derivative work, you get the percentage of your work's contribution to the derivative.

Also, yes, that's exactly what it means when they have the right to modify your information, and it generally specifies 1) converting text into data so it can be stored and referenced from the DB and 2) converting your picture into a thumbnail. That's pretty much as far as reddit manipulates your data.

If you're really that afraid of the TOS of sites, don't use the internet. However, I personally take steps to protect my intellectual property rights. Maybe you should look into those steps, my friend.

which includes a LOT scarier information such as full name, phone model, MAC, IP, GPS coordinates, carrier, so on and so forth

Not true. Metadata contains whatever you want. If you want your metadata to simply have your anonymous artist name or pseudonym, you can do that.

I find it telling that you just used the word "scary" to describe metadata.

They still have to pay for a derivative work

No, they don't. The TOS specifically says anything they do with it is royalty-free.

If you're really that afraid of the TOS of sites,

I'm not. I use iTunes and other sites, because, as I've already noted, iTunes TOS doesn't look like this and grant them these rights over content submitted to them.

Maybe you should look into those steps, my friend.

I'm a professional songwriter and have been registered with ASCAP for decades. Thanks, though.

They're basically over complicating the entire process of saying:

Anything you post directly to reddit (through i.reddit or v.reddit, imgur, other affiliates) is assumed to be creative commons. Any content that's creative commons is free to distribute and modify.

Anything that is linked through reddit to a third party is not their responsibility to pay royalties for. Any use of that link by reddit or the community is equivalent to looking at a building on a map. They're not in the shop, yet per se.

They have the right to remove metadata, first to protect you, second because often that metadata is extraneous and is a handful of bytes saved on their db.

If you have so much concern for your creative content, don't post it to reddit. If you haven't already taken steps to protect your intellectual rights, that's on you.

That's all it says. They aren't trying to own your content. The implications of them trying to do so spreads much further than some dingus uploading an mp3 of their latest webcam jam sesh. It would crush their site if they suddenly attempt to claim data as their own, the number of sites that gain traffic through them is gigantic. They'd be pissed if reddit tried to claim their content as reddit's.

By submitting Your Content to the Services, you represent and warrant that you have all rights, power, and authority necessary to grant the rights to Your Content contained within these Terms. Because you alone are responsible for Your Content, you may expose yourself to liability if you post or share Content without all necessary rights.

So I post a music video I made and own all the rights to.

If I haven't in some way registered the video with a 3rd party, it essentially becomes CC for Reddit to use in any way they see fit.

If I've registered with a 3rd party, Reddit can still attempt to own my content but the 3rd party will engage them legally and challenge their TOS.

They have the right to remove metadata, first to protect you, second because often that metadata is extraneous and is a handful of bytes saved on their db.

Do you deny that removal of metadata can help Reddit to claim and use your works as their own, especially since you've waived your moral rights and right to attribution ?

If you have so much concern for your creative content, don't post it to reddit

Why? Because you're admitting Reddit can take your content and appropriate it for their own use without any obligations to you?

That's all it says

All it says, according to what youre saying here, is that you better have a 3rd party involved or else we will take your shit?

some dingus uploading an mp3 of their latest webcam jam sesh.

Cool veiled ad hom.

It would crush their site if they suddenly attempt to claim data as their own, the number of sites that gain traffic through them is gigantic. They'd be pissed if reddit tried to claim their content as reddit's.

Again, so unless a 3rd party is there to challenge the absurdity of the TOS and the catch-22 it creates, a regular Joe ( dingus , as you so eloquently put it) uploading something to Reddit has given their content to Reddit on a silver platter.

However, they (Reddit, Inc.) can then take the song, cut it down to 30 seconds, and use it to make a TV ad for reddit or something.

What are you basing that claim on? Seriously, you're ignoring the plain language of the TOS and making completely unsourced claims that contradict the TOS itself.

When Your Content is created with or submitted to the Services, you grant us a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable, and sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, adapt, prepare derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display Your Content and any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with Your Content in all media formats and channels now known or later developed. This license includes the right for us to make Your Content available for syndication, broadcast, distribution, or publication by other companies, organizations, or individuals who partner with Reddit. You also agree that we may remove metadata associated with Your Content, and you irrevocably waive any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to Your Content.

If you are a PRO member, they still have to pay your PRO, and you will still receive all the royalties you deserve.

Yes, for iTunes. You might notice that the TOS we're actually discussing here literally says "royalty-free"

I am not a lawyer, but I do have familiarity with copyright law. The supposed lawyer who also commented doesn’t seem to understand that EU law applies here.

So you won't answer any of my questions?

No, I will. In a longer post though.

I look forward to it.

The supposed lawyer who also commented doesn’t seem to understand that EU law applies here.

EU law applies in the EU. Why do you keep acting like EU law applies to the whole world?

Similarly, why won't you provide backup to the claim that the license is void under EU law? You keep making these blanket statements.

I’m acting like that because the TOS was rewritten to comply with the EU law. And as you’ve said previously, the strictest version applies. If the strictest version is in compliance with the EU law, then it applies there, and everywhere else.

I’ll agree I was incorrect in saying that the license didn’t give Reddit the right to sell your content, but I still believe I’m correct in that deleting your content off their site will end that license.

Going to paste the same response to the same incorrect claim:

1) The TOS says that you provide an IP license that is irrevocable and survives the deletion of your account.

2) You say that under EU law, an IP license MUST be revoked upon deletion of the account.

3) You also say that the TOS has been rewritten to comply with EU law.

It's not even a debate about how to interpret EU law, you're literally contradicting yourself. How is the TOS rewritten to comply with EU law when YOU YOURSELF say it has provisions that violate EU law???

Thank you!

Edit: as pointed out by a lawyer in the comments below, Reddit does claim the right to sell your content.

This has been the case for years.

Actually, seeing whats happening with twitter right now, maybe they cant block users soon

?

IIRC Twitter has been deemed a public forum in the law case about the POTUS blocking people on said platform. If this is true and holds up, then it could be illegal to ban people from the site. And if that's true for Twitter, then nothing is save

Erm, no. POTUS can’t block people because he’s POTUS and you cannot block people from responding to a public figure in their official capacity. That doesn’t apply to anyone else.

Thats not what this is about. It's about Twitter possibly being a public forum. If it is, then it could be illegal for Twitter to ban or delete accounts

I kinda doubt it would be as a private company.

Depends if someone actually tries it

Wow. You managed to make a huge post without actually knowing anything about what you’re saying. Please, stop trying to explain legal documents now. You’ve completely failed in your understanding of it

Could he be a TMOR used trying to scare this subreddit?

Do snakes have to avoid attacks from honey bees?

RemindMe! One Month "to point and laugh at u/spiritual_war when he is still here a month after saying he's gone"

I will be messaging you on 2018-06-26 17:25:09 UTC to remind you of this link.

CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.

^{Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.}

LOL...So...no change then?

LOL...you're a lunatic.

I refuse to believe people that delusioned exist. Holy hell. I'm just gonna pretend he's a troll, otherwise I'd have to kill myself over the sad state of humanity.

Ummm...Reddit is already a corporation.

Is Reddit going back to editing user posts?

"Going back to" implies they stopped at some point . Which, without a verifiable closure to the Great Spezzing™ of 2016, is UN-provable, and is worth remembering every time some 'uppity' sub or user is rendered an un-person .

So does this mean that if artwork like photos, paintings, music, etc. are posted by the original artist, that reddit can simply take ownership of that work?

No, because OP doesn’t understand copyright law.

You mean in the giant post I provided above as its own comment? I explained the whole thing there.

one section alone

Yeah, except no. That’s not how any of this works.

No, the post is BS. Look for the rebuttals in comments. OP is just spreading misinformation.

With how much people talk about Israel on this sub, I'm expecting they'll shut it down in due time.

How to mass delete?

I just downloaded the extension for chrome 'nuke reddit'. its deleted my comment history. winning!

I think that Reddit is retaining your information regardless of whether or not you delete it. You can pretty much be certain they have copies.

There is a way to delete infos. They save comments deleted but not edited. There is no editing history. So if you first edit the comment then delete it no one will see what you initially wrote.

I know there is a nukereddit chrome extension that goes through your profile editing and deleting comments. It simply simulates clicks and keystrokes in your browser so it takes a while but gets the job done automatically.

/KeyserSosa is out to destroy us

I read this in Captain Kirks voice.

"Please. Read. The TOS And see!"

delusions of grandeur? Are you saving us?

Wait, so does reddit now own this conspiracy theory about reddit?

I’m sorry, but I completely dismissed everything you had to say when you stood up for The Daily Caller. Those people are fucking monsters and anyone who defends them is automatically unreliable, even by the lowest of standards.

Reddit has ALWAYS been a corporation, that’s just the legal term for a protected business (LLC, S-corp, etc.)...for some reason people associate “corporation” with “evil”, and its not as simple as that.

Reddit is part of the Conde Nast umbrella (Vanity Fair, etc.)...they’ve been part of the “mainstream media” with their own agendas and narratives for a long time already.

Since the end of Digg, if I recall correctly. Right around the end of the last decade.

Since the telecommunications act of 1996, which was ironically created for more market freedom in media, the media industry has slowly become more of a monopolized industry. The issue is compounded by the fact that media has exponentially increased its influence in capitalist nations, through the advent of the Internet and other technological advances.

Just my personal opinion.

I value your opinion.

An LLC is not a corporation.

How so? An LLC is a limited Liability Company and a corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity.

Because LLCs are not incorporated - ie ownership is not divided into stock.

Except issuing stock doesn’t define something as a corporation.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stock_corporation?wprov=sfti1

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stock_corporation?wprov=sfti1

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 186170}

Huh, interesting, I’ve never heard of that. Nonetheless, LLCs are not corporations because they are not incorporated.

Being “incorporated” has nothing to do with being a corporation. It can be incorporated but it doesn’t have to be. All LLCs are corporations but not all corporations are LLCs.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/corporation

That is completely wrong. Being incorporated is what makes a company a corporation. Corporations are formed by “Articles of Incorporation”. You can’t have a corporation without the act of incorporation.

LLCs are not formed by the filing of articles of incorporation. They are governed by different rules than corporations. The whole point of LLCs is that they are not the same as corporations. That’s why they were invented.

Source?

Lol what of course it is, it’s a corporation classification usually for tax purposes- I know a lot of bands incorporate via LLC to protect themselves

What it is for tax purposes has nothing it do with it, and even for tax purposes there are big differences between an LLC and a corporation. A business can’t “incorporate as an LLC.” It fan file articles of incorporation or it can file articles of organization to be an LLC. They are different things in every state.

The hysterics were fun in this post. Hope you're wearing an adult diaper.

Reddit is completely over taken and on its road to literally becoming a corporation .

Hate to tell you, man

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=29927936

Did he think Reddit was some indie group of rogue programmers?

Reddit was started by a handful of college stoners who only discussed indie tech shit until it was acquired a year later by Conde Nast -- the bastion of journalism responsible for celebrity booty count . The gig was up before the gig existed.

Booty booty booty riding everywhere

This is the kind of intellectual discourse that keeps bringing me back to reddit

Gucci gang gucci gang gucci gang gucci gang...

Reddit was created by Aaron Swartz...he would spit on what reddit has become and create something 10x more amazing. There aren't many things I believe to be divine but Swartz was divine.

Most of the things around IP rights he's screaming about have been there for years, too. The resetting on the position recently is because of some pro- privacy developments in the EU. This is the improved version.

lol

Guys this is seriously, seriously, a huge attack on individual freedom and property rights.

And Republicans continue to deregulate corporations, with the infamous 2010 5-4 Supreme Court case Citizens United leading the way. The head of the group Citizens United went on to join the Donald Trump campaign.

Supreme Court case Citizens United

In the case, the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President. Federal law, however, prohibited any corporation (or labor union) from making an "electioneering communication" (defined as a broadcast ad reaching over 50,000 people in the electorate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. The court found that these provisions of the law conflicted with the U.S. Constitution.

However, the court upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.

Thank you for your official sounding history in r/conspiracy. Let's go into the meat:

The group Citizens United was created to launch a campaign to get Clarence Thomas appointed to the Supreme Court.

In 2004, Citizens United complained to the FCC that the Michael Moore movie Fahrenheit 9-11 violated FCC rules about electioneering in time of election. They lost.

Four years later, Citizens United made its own film, Hillary The Movie . The nonprofit was blocked from advertising it.

They took the case to court claiming that the movie was not electioneering.

When the case arrived at the Supreme Court, they held Oral Argument. Then, rather than decide the case on the merits of electioneering, they held the case over to the next term, changed the question, and ordered another oral argument.

The 5-4 Court ultimately decided to overturn a hundred years of election law and decades of court precedent, declaring by fiat that business corporations and unions along with nonprofits, could spend unlimited and undisclosed amounts of money on electioneering.

The dissent in the case, John Paul Stevens, noted the judicial activism of the five: "Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law."

Although the five claimed that they were correcting conflicts of earlier cases, they blatantly created a new conflict between the way individuals and entities were allowed to electioneer. That was harmonized later on the side of billionaires, of course.

It is worth noting that every major corporate personhood case going all the way back to the 1800s was decided by majority Republicans.

The error was allowing Michael Moore's films to run in clear violation of electioneering law. That was the mistake the courts made in 2004. Citizens was correct in the case they filed against Moore.

By siding with Moore and allowing one form of propaganda to run at election time, the courts opened the floodgate. The subsequent decision was then right in regard to standing precedent.

Also, the FEC is the government body in question, not the FCC.

We may agree or disagree about the 2004 FEC decision on Fahrenheit 9-11 and we may complain about how one decision was inconsistent from the other.

One was a long-time movie maker making a movie. The other was a partisan political organization entering the realm of movie making for a campaign.

BUT it does not follow that we cannot tell in many cases "what was political advertising." For 100 years, we have been able to tell.

the courts opened the floodgate.

It does not follow that an inconsistent decision about this movie versus that movie should open any "floodgates" of judicial activism to go far beyond the case and permit business corporations to spend as much money as they want from their general fund for electioneering.

The American people had this one right in 2010:

Eight in 10 poll respondents say they oppose the high court's Jan. 21 decision to allow unfettered corporate political spending, with 65 percent "strongly" opposed. Nearly as many backed congressional action to curb the ruling, with 72 percent in favor of reinstating limits.

Most of us know that unlimited "electioneering" corrupts our government and that our system of representative government is at stake.

What did people expect to happen when you put a wealthy business man in charge of the country? Right, he’s going to make decisions and policy changes that benefit his bottom line. I mean, who wouldn’t? This was a major conflict of interest from the start. But I degress. That is old news lol. Basically, I’m wondering if it’s necessary to literally delete all of our past comments/posts?

I don't feel like I need to. Somebody has them anyway. We are going to have to fix things in the light while they get to play in the dark.

OP is fucking retarded

Removed. Rule 4. Final warning.

Your post is bullshit and your deletion guide is outdated. Regardless of the situation you should regularly scrub your acct so use Reddit power delete suite if you want.

Reddit Power Delete Suite

The guide might be new but greasemonkey delete scripts should be old news.

Seems to me, the whole TOS/EULA stuff on most sites are updating to conform to EU laws and regulations. Basically, they are covering their butts to they don't wind up in EU courts. They are just spelling out things that were implied in previous versions of their TOS.

You post something to Reddit, it is your IP. However, you are wanting to share that IP via their platform, so you have to grant them permission to do so. Agreeing to the TOS gives them that permission.

Like others have said, they have the right to delete content because they own the platform. It is just like, if you run a blog, you would have certain standards for what comments on your posts can contain. Example: On my blog, if a comment is obviously a blatant attempt to advertise something, I will delete it. I most comments stay on the site, unless they are outright attacks on another participant in the conversation.

Other things you are allowing Reddit to do is track you with cookies, keep a log of your activities on the site, and other things that go on under the hood. This is just part of being on the modern Internet.

The only way you can totally have control of your IP is not to share it one social media, don't use online content creators (Google Docs, etc), run your a privately ran server of your own.

Welcome to the Online age.

This post is an excellent case for the dangers of weaponized autism, which is far more concerning than anything you've tried to describe.

Better wear your colander helmet.

This is why I stopped coming here to this shit of a website. They ruined this fucking thing. I refuse to come here now. I can smell the manipulation of front page.

Later guys!

I see nothing to be worried about. We post an image to reddit, we use reddit, why wouldn't reddit be also able to use that image?

If you are worried about them stealing it for nefarious purposes, copyright it. Reddit's user agreement does not trump an existing copyright, otherwise reddit could claim they own the thousands of copyrighted images and videos reposted here every day.

I guess stop using reddit if it scares you so.

It’s not corruption. It’s a business. Move along.

It’s not corruption. It’s a business. Move along.

Reddit's already a corporation you fucknut.

Responses to personal insults rarely have the desired effect.

*and girls

Didn't read all of this wall of text, but you use words incorrectly, mostly likely from being from Serbja or Hravatska or Suomi or some such place - regardless, ToS aren't not legal documents, they aren't contracts and are not written in a properly-written format.

They are just pixels on a screen, and if le reddit tries to monetize your content w/o authorization or recompense or both then they are liable, the execs at le reddit having created a ToS notwithstanding.

This post is cheesy and dramatic...”Alright boys”... lol

darkest hour lmao

"Boys.... eherm... it's time to DELETE ALL CONTENT"

"Thanks boys! See you on my site"

Same as usual. They have all the rights you have none.

You must be new to earth if that's 'scary'. Welcome!

It was my understanding that editing an old comment and then deleting it, didn't actually remove the comment from reddit - they still have it saved somewhere.

Is that not true?

Im sure they run back ups constantly in case of failure and could reboot from a back up. So yeah I imagine it's out there

Use Brave browser and it resolves most of your issues for spyware, adware etc. Re: IP This is their website, they own the data - not us.

I like how you threw in there the "I have my own replacement of reddit ready for you all to join! NOTHING is in it for me financially.... I PROMISE!" LoL

Are you trying to write a haiku?

I've gotten more than a few emails of all sorts of different websites regarding their privacy updates. It was all simultaneous. Just would like to throw that out. there for a possible connection

/r/writingprompts should be careful, a lot of people end up turning what they post onto there into novels at some point.

I don't know if they have a meta sub. Maybe messaging a couple moderators might be worth doing.

How would my Reddit account ever be matched with my real life?

Explain it

to literally becoming a corporation

LOL WUT? they are a corporation you fucking moron. the post gets so way worse from here.

Your only comment I upvoted. Good attitude.

So... how is voat.co looking these days?

90% of the racism is shills, they do this to turn people away from the site.

Various companies will pay people to post online and to promote or dispute certain ideas or topics.

Not only reddit.

I been getting emails from tons of websites saying they changed the terms of service.

Whats going on?

GDPR compliance updates.

At this point in time, If I had to guess, I'd say censorship and new algorithm changes.

Just let Reddit die.

Since this post is about changes in the new Reddit User Agreement, the bare minimum you could have done before making a post is compare the new User Agreement with the old User Agreement to see what actual changes have been made.

I'd do it myself, but all that legal mumbo jumbo goes right over my head.

Literally a corporation Say it ain't so!

They don't think it be like it is

Good meme

literally becoming a corporation

all eyes on deck

Annnnd that’s where I stopped reading lol

Maybe take a minute to make sure the shit you’re posting makes the bare minimum of sense and you don’t sound like a goddam tweaked

thanks, and I really am sorry to have used that kind of harsh language

God damn it. I love /r/writingprompts , but I always figured people on Reddit were using that to mine for content. And now I know they are.

Do I really need to delete all my comments/history? I honestly don't say anything that I wouldn't say in real life. Also, Reddit knows who I am in real life. You guys don't, but Reddit already knows my real name.

If you think I really need to delete my comment history, I will do it. But honestly, if somebody ever doxxed me, I wouldn't be in trouble because I don't say anything bad on here.

Yes, I know who you are and know your old account. 🙂

Thanks for the reassuring words!

Yes, I'm always here. 🙂

Remember that Good will always defeat Evil in the end!

It's okay to be passionate and excited about it! 🙂

I'm glad you are feeling better!

🙂🙂🙂💕💕💕

This is actually terrible, some of the best ideas come from here! So many people are going to be ripped off.

Life has a funny way of giving you perfect alternatives right when you really need them. VOAT has evolved into a reddit 2.0. It has taken all the good of Reddit without the censorship and brigading. VOAT now is what reddit used to be 6-7 years ago.

Jesus all you dicks arguing over terms that are too dense to parse through for the regular Dude — tell me this: is there anything here that is not standard and that needs to be worried over? And; as a content creator (musician) myself, do I need to worry about any specific legalese in regards to my ownership of my content? Like I have extensive archived proof that the work belongs to me, was created by me, etc, and it is hosted on another site which on occasion I have linked to on reddit. Like I have the raw mixes and footage and all that. When writing a novel people often talk about mailing yourself a manuscript with a date to prove it was yours and yada yada. Doesn’t my possession of original instrument recordings and raw mixes and such indisputably identify me as the creator and owner of such artwork? Essentially if you were a regular dickhead trying to take your work pro, is there anything here that potentially will fuck me in the future or otherwise allow my work to be stolen from me/perverted? I’m not trying to be the dude who like wrote the ultimate mega billion dollar song and receives no credit, profit, etc from it.

Uhh what do you mean? Don’t host it on YouTube? Why?

I am not worried about my ownership of the content, or proving its mine or anything. I am specifically asking if reddit can fuck me over via this new change

WALL OF TEXT ALERT !!

Douche who feels the need to not respond to anything written because he reads at a 3rd grade level alert

Well, just read the TOS instead of relying on an editorialized thing.

I foresee a civil liberties lawsuit in the works. Reddit can't fashion itself as a social media platform without accepting our constitutional rights to privacy and free speech.

You lost me when you started writing your interpretations on the new terms without posting what the terms actually say before hand.

Is there a comment area for the comments?

Lol is this really "the darkest hour" man?

Migrants are getting rounded up in real life -- or shot in the street -- and you're on a website whiffing on 101 legal concepts

Did you raise an issue when martial law was declared in Boston after the marathon bombing?

Just don't use Reddit. I'm finding it less useful the more they manipulate the feeds for their own political and monetary reasons. Surprisingly Facebook dedicated groups are more active and useful than the niche subreddits here.

Social media is what you make of it. I have no friends on Facebook and just subscribe to a few communities. I use a wrapper app so see no ads and other adsorted bullshit.

Sort by controversial. ;)

Love Prayer Aliens Tsunami Police Heartache

I do like threes

Tinfoil hats, everyone, quick!

T R O L L

Nahhh.....

I'm getting a Ready Player One feeling from this post. No, we're not gonna take it!

Damn straight man. I deleted all my deep / non-comedic posts, fuck them guys.

Ok, Bye. Enjoy your alternative.

Hi bunny. ;)

Uh... they need rights to your content, otherwise they can't host it. That's how social media websites work...

Nothing in this ToS looks suspicious to me at all.

Go back to your pizza emails, child.

Reddit's been corporate since they sold out to Conde Nast. On one hand, fuck them for making stupid changes like this. On the other hand, they're just trying to get paid, which I can respect. I'd sell the fuck out, too, if I had anything of value.

Because ideals don't put food on the table.

Yeah. When you monetize them. AKA sell out.

I think this has something to do with all of the people leaving FB and coming to Reddit to make sure there is no privacy anywhere. They are trying to make Reddit chat a thing for people that used to it on FB

About time!

It's always been this way. And how is this different from what Facebook or Google do?

If you want privacy stay off the Internet. That's the sad reality as cynical as it may sound.

Yes.

And OP is telling the entire /r/conspiracy community to self-destruct, delete all content? WTF? Maybe someone doesn't like a recent thread or something like that?

I'm telling everyone reading this: STAY.

As usual, wildly, wildly, overblown. Just stop.

There are multiple comments debunking much of what you said, and I read the TOS myself, most of your claims are entirely baseless and at their root come from a place of misunderstanding. This is the reason I am not concerned about these “privacy” pump and dumps that pop up from time to time: no one really cares about you that much. Reddit’s TOS is designed to protect them and sets basic rules in place that allow them to moderate the site. That’s it. There is no conspiracy, they are not trying to be you, your company is not liable for your actions on reddit.

I truly appreciate your effort with the original post, but maybe focus your attention on another issue. Thanks.

Well it's about time.

Well then.

This is a cleverly disguised way to get people to jump ship.

You read the comment that explained everything. It ain't scary like you said bruh.

https://www.np.reddit.com/r/HFY/comments/8mbchn/comment/dzmd0i1?st=JHO2G106&sh=4b68fa6e&utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=conspiracy&utm_content=t1_dzlzcuq

It's really difficult to tell what you're directly quoting from the TOS and where you're editorializing.

I don't get why I need to delete all my old comments tho?

We need to start using Usenet again. Any private corporation ultimately has to protect itself legally and financially. No website will be safe even it it was run by individuals with the best of intentions.

http://reddit.com/r/usenet/ check yje wiki page

I mean, you can't even earn money off of it. The next best bet is to create a new website and slowly transfer people who are aware of this and don't want this progressing to the new site.

This reads like it's written by a quarter informed person that sorta knows some stuff and the comments fully enforce that

And this is why the chans exist Kek

You could always come check out Gab.ai, where there is complete and total free speech.

It’s like Twitter but with completely free speech, aside from threats of violence or anything illegal.

They shut down r/megalinks even though the people on the forums just posted text that needed to be deciphered via base64 to get a link. Cuckland.

I'm going to stop posting my original art and deleting any art I posted here. That's why I don't Instagram.

Reddit is completely over taken and on its road to literally becoming a corporation.

So if we don't leave at the change, then we are slaves?

awareness will change hearts and minds

Lots of awareness going on, but operations are the same as usual.

Don't beg.

Hopefully everyone learns something new everyday.

Anyway to do this from a phone? No computer anymore

As a Reddit employee, I can tell you that we make millions off the content you idiots upload for free. Thanks!

plot twist: when you delete your shit on reddit it gets sent to a priority folder that gets read before any of the undeleted content.

probably? definitively.

is there already a community on voat?

Yes and it's much freer. No SJWs getting offended [well they are, but they can't do anything about it]. Over there people say it as it is.

I know. I just dont know if there is already a subverse kind of like r/conspiracy

Damn, reddit could sell all of r/gonewild to porn websites and those women can't do anything about it.

I have long thought that all the askreddits and other subs are so fishy. Like the questions and responces, they gather this data and build a vertual profile of you. Then they can sell you! Reddit gets users to share so much, so to a combination of fb, reddit and google data, you the user, have pretty much told them, how you think, what you think, like, idearions, history, list goes on.

Can't delete my history, tried everything. I have been on Voat for years now and only come here sort of half hearted. Seems that I have to completely leave reddit now.

Chrome but I also tried on Firefox. Tried a variety of apps. Nothing. If you could help let me know, thanks.

We need to make an organised move accross multiple subreddits to another one. I'm not overly sure of what other reddit alternatives there are but what happened to digg needs to happen now to reddit.

I can't have the stuff from this account be linked to real life me. Unfortunately I was naive and ignorant when I made this account so it has a real email address attached to it. I know they hold onto that even if I change that so looks like this account must be deleted soon.

I'm not sure if I trust script programs to have access to my account, would simply deleting it be enough?

Dear OP

Please let your old comments stay up. I sometimes search back to check old content.

I'm sure we will be fine.

Thanks

You could have saved a lot of time just googling the Reddit parent company Advance Publications to see how corporate it is already. They reportedly made $2.4 billion in 2016.

What about links to copyrighted material published on other sites? That content isn't included under this is it?

The "can make derivatives" part is unsettling.

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights

^{HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 186043}

Lawyer here. Your assumptions are completely correct. OP doesn't have a fucking clue what they're talking about.

Adapted, derivative works means exactly what you think - basically anything. They can produce content based on your work with outside partners with no attribution or royalties owed to you. That means TV, movies, books, etc.

OK, so first, you should see my response above to MASTURBATES_YOUR_DAD to answer the first couple.

If you post an mp3 of a song you made, you're giving similar rights as you would to iTunes to use it in their ads. You still own the creative content rights, as well as the mechanicals for the recording. However, they (Reddit, Inc.) can then take the song, cut it down to 30 seconds, and use it to make a TV ad for reddit or something. If you are a PRO member, they still have to pay your PRO, and you will still receive all the royalties you deserve.

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

They remove the metadata TO PROTECT YOU . If you post a picture and all the metadata is still there, (which includes a LOT scarier information such as full name, phone model, MAC, IP, GPS coordinates, carrier, so on and so forth) somebody can doxx you much, much easier.

They still have to pay for a derivative work, you get the percentage of your work's contribution to the derivative.

Also, yes, that's exactly what it means when they have the right to modify your information, and it generally specifies 1) converting text into data so it can be stored and referenced from the DB and 2) converting your picture into a thumbnail. That's pretty much as far as reddit manipulates your data.

If you're really that afraid of the TOS of sites, don't use the internet. However, I personally take steps to protect my intellectual property rights. Maybe you should look into those steps, my friend.

I am not a lawyer, but I do have familiarity with copyright law. The supposed lawyer who also commented doesn’t seem to understand that EU law applies here.

However, it was rewritten to comply with the EU guidelines.

Okay I really don't know how to make it any simpler so let me just ask you:

If it contains provisions that violate EU law (as you say it does with the license that survives deletion), how can it also be written to comply with EU law?

as you say it does with the license that survives deletion

Because I’ve never said it violates the EU law. I said it would if it didn’t allow for that.

Here's what Bitcoin can do: drop from 18,000 to 8,500 in how many months? I'll you answer that one. Hint: far less than a year. Who were these idiot "experts" and economists from all these publications saying the price would top 20,000 by the end of 2018? That didn't go well to say the least, no?

People just like you (literally spewing the same talking points from the articles you read from "experts") focus on trying to sell the dream of what btc could do...but it donit for your own financial interests. Because the more people who pull out...that's not good for you, right?

You are a living advertisement. That is what btc shills have relegated themselves to being.

I love watching the crypto pyramid schemes fail. Uncontrollable cryptos, with exchanges that can't agree on prices, over 400 other cryptos. All going under one by one.

Mate, tell me what causes btc price to go up and how does it make an entity money? Not how does make holders money. To make it simple : what is btc built on and how does the price go up without creating or funding something? It's not like a legitimate stock that builds or detracts from a company.

Dude there's not even 400 national currencies on the planet. Yet the whole world agrees on defined, national currency rates. Then look at crypto prices. Out of control and no exchanges are able align their prices together, second by second. And this is why crpytos will never go anywhere in a formal fashion. Cryptos came around 50 years too late. If computers existed at the time that could handle crypto stuff, then things could've gone somewhere. But if you think dishevelled crypto currencies are going to beat big business, Globalism (most notably Globalism) and any major bank in the first world...you are wasting time, attention and money. I've been watching the fanboy wagon shit ever since btc hit 5000. Have a degree in economics. I'm no fool.

Douche who feels the need to not respond to anything written because he reads at a 3rd grade level alert

http://reddit.com/r/usenet/ check yje wiki page