Yahoo Backs Down (sorta)

Jareth writes "In their revised terms of service, Yahoo is trying to make it clear that they do not own content that you submit. They still haven't taken out the sections about 'modify, adapt, ... create derivative works from'. So while they don't own your web page, they can still do anything they want to it. The story is over at Wired. "

Comments

Does this *really* mean anything?

[D. Taylor]

They state that:
' Yahoo does not own Content you submit, unless we specifically tell you
otherwise before you submit it. You license the Content to Yahoo as
set forth below..'

And below it says:
' By submitting Content to any Yahoo
property, you automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such
Content has expressly granted, Yahoo the royalty-free,...'
So, Basically, they tell you other wise. They don't *own* the content, but they have a non-exclusive license to use it still.

Top X Things Yahoo Plans To Do To Your Webpage

[RimRod]

I know it's been a few days and you've all dearly missed the Top X lists...but real life beckons occasionally! :)

1) Sell it to the Chinese. (Or is that Let the Chinese steal it?)

2) Add a moving "Y" to the bottom of every page. Naaaaaah, no one would EVER be that cheap.

3) Broadcast it to the entire Internet using Shoutcast.

4) Test out their new Virtual Paper Shredder on it.

5) Make Webpaper Airplanes.

6) Compile millions of personal webpages on a comprehensive CD-ROM. The title? "How Web Geeks Waste Their Free Time". (I know, I know. Free Time is a myth.)

7) Slashdot it.

Baaaaaaaaaaa

[signe]

All they're trying to do is pull the wool over our eyes. I mean, come on! I know some of you Yahoo people are reading this. Do you think we're stupid or something? All Yahoo did was add some non-legal jargon that means absolutely nothing. Let's take a look at it, shall we?

Yahoo does not own Content you submit, unless we specifically tell you otherwise before you submit it.

Sorry guys. You don't own content I submit even if you say this when I submit it. You don't have any ownership rights whatsoever unless I explicitly give them. This statement is just to pacify the reactionists who thought that the later parts gave Yahoo ownership of the content, which they never did. Discard useless sentence number one.

You license the Content to Yahoo as set forth below for the purpose of displaying and distributing such Content on our network of properties and for the promotion and marketing of our services.

Oh wow. Looks like Yahoo's limiting how they can use your content, just like Tripod does, right? (And I looked at Tripod's TOS... it's really not that unreasonable) Nope. Look at it from a lawyer's point of view. They never used the word limited or exclusive, so all this is is another empty promise. If they had said limited purposes or exclusive purposes then this statement would be legally binding and you'd have every right to go after them if they used your content for something other than promoting you or the service. Scratch statement number two, but kudos to your lawyers for coming up with something suitably obfuscated that would fool some of the people.

By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such Content has expressly granted, Yahoo the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.

And here's the first of the original statements. Let's look at it in light of Yahoo adding the first two statements. Well, let's see... we're still giving Yahoo the right to use the content, and although they stated what the purposes are above, they didn't limit them. So the meaning remains the same. They also still have the right to modify and create derivative works. And here's the kicker. They still have the right to distribute and sub-license the content. Which means even IF the second statement about the purposes held any water, they could still sell it to someone else to do with as they please. And just to add insult to injury, they haven't limited the term of the license to the term of your account (like Tripod has).

Wow. It's so nice that Yahoo backed down. It's so nice that they're not the giant corporation that doesn't care about their customers that we thought they were. Nice try guys, but we're not the mindless sheep you seem to think we are.

---