Okay, all of this started when the following post, by a
lawyer, was brought to my attention:
(I suggest reading it)
So I hired an IP lawyer to look at the post above as well as
the terms of the contact you sign when you join Patreon as a creator, and this
is what I got back:
Hi John,
I have broken the
analysis up into a couple of sections going from high level at the top to
nitty-gritty at the bottom.
Bottom Line:
The rights you are giving Patreon are too broad if you are posting complete
novels to the site. You have two options: 1) Use Patreon to collect payments
and post updates to engage with your community, but distribute your work
(books, rewards, and content) through another system like email (i.e. not
posting them to Patreon, but using Constant Contact or Mail Chimp); or 2) Stop
using Patreon altogether.
Explanation of Bottom Line: Here is the language of
the license you are granting Patreon: “By posting content to Patreon you grant
us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable,
worldwide license to use, reproduce, distribute, perform, publicly display or
prepare derivative works of your content.” It is too broad because there is no
time limit, no limitations on use (despite the later wording in the same
paragraph, see attached and below), no payments to you, and no ability by you
to revoke the license should a falling out occur.
Detailed
Analysis: There are some things in the post with which I agree, but
some things with which I don’t. The post heavily implies that the language
gives Patreon ownership of the work you post on Patreon. That is false, but the
tricky part is that the rights you do give up are so broad that it looks like
ownership to normal people.
The reason it is
false is because of the words “non-exclusive.” That means you have all the
ability to perform all the copyrights (use, reproduce, distribute, perform,
publicly display or prepare derivative works) yourself, or authorize others to
do so. For example, you can sell your books on Amazon because you retain the
right to authorize Amazon to reproduce and distribute.
However, the reason
it looks like ownership to normal people is that Patreon can distribute your
works for free, the same works you are selling on Amazon. Patreon can do that
because of the words “royalty-free,” “reproduce,” and “distribute.” So to
normal people, what good is that non-exclusivity doing? Not much, because
although you can sell on Amazon, you won’t make any money when they can go to
Patreon for the same content for free. But it is because of that
non-exclusivity that these Patreon statements are true:
·
“You keep
complete ownership of all content, but give us permission to use it on
Patreon.”
·
“You keep full
ownership of all content that you post on Patreon, but to operate we need
licenses from you.”
Speaking of which,
the following statements MAY also be true, but the problem is two-fold: 1) it
requires you to trust Patreon; and 2) the trust requirement is unnecessary if
Patreon would have just circumscribed the rights language in the first place
(this is the part where I agree with the post):
·
“The purpose
of this license is to allow us to operate Patreon, promote Patreon and promote
your content on Patreon.”
·
“We are not
trying to steal your content or use it in an exploitative way.”
The best way I can
put it is that Patreon’s actions are not comporting with their words. They may
not have broken their promise yet, and they may never break their promise due
to the bad PR they would receive, but if we are in a position where we can
protect ourselves from a potential broken promise then let’s do so.