3 years ago

wow - i'd like to hear Indigo's rebutle

report this

3 years ago

Hi Shireen,

I will take your concerns to our Privacy Officer.

Renee

report this

3 years ago

I look forward to hearing what the Officer says and how Indigo will improve on this, not only in ensuring users retain copyright, but also putting the TOS in English. Thanks!

report this

3 years ago

First off, everyone take a deep breath. Ok, take one more deep breath - release slowly....
When the Terms of Use were drafted we had to come up with something that wasn't too specific- only because it's very hard to think of each and every scenario to explore and detail NOT because we are attempting to pull a fast one on anyone. What this part of the Terms of Use is referring to is situations where we would use community content to publicize or promote exceptional members of our community. When we launched, we had a massive campaign involving high profile authors and actors - we needed to ensure we were allowed to create posters using their images and quoting them. We would never use anyone's content and pawn it off as our own.

report this

3 years ago

Further, if someone were to post content that is illegal or grossly inappropriate we have the right to remove it. We also have the right to share it with the authorities. For this reason and others we claim certain authority over the content on our site. - As any responsible company would do.
The concept of 'ownership' is not as simple as candy in your pocket.

report this

3 years ago

Merlin, I get your point EXCEPT that you do not need to claim copyright ownership or enforce waiver of moral rights to do what you need to in order to run the website. Specifically, your TOS does say, "shall be deemed and shall remain the property of Indigo, including all copyright..User waives in favour of Indigo any and all moral rights..."

You don't need copyright on my work or have me waive moral rights in order to quote from me (that falls under fair use in copyright law) or create posters; you don't need it to remove obscene material or share with authorities. Content is already in the public sphere so the authorities can read it without you even knowing about it. No other TOS is this draconian, not even Facebook.

report this

3 years ago

this is some good insight both from Shireen and Merlin

unfortunately i can't contribute, and i'm not really worried about my work or my morals, but i can see how others might be

great points. Shireen, i see that you are an "author and top blogger" but i don't see "lawyer" - you'd be good at that :)

report this

3 years ago

LOL!! It must be my genes; I come from a long line of lawyers. :) Thanks Jac!

Actually, moral rights are a bit of a misnomer. It "means that no one, including the person who owns the copyright, is allowed to distort, mutilate or otherwise modify your work in a way that is prejudicial to your honour or reputation." From Canadian gov't website.

report this

3 years ago

It sounds like Chapters/Indigo's legal team is making a very wide sweep at tackling the issue in the Terms of Use. It'll be interesting to find out what comes as a result of your post Shireen.

As an employee who participates and shares feedback I can't help but feel a little insulted at the idea that Chapters/Indigo has any negative intentions with the content posted on the site. I don't believe that there is anything sinister going on behind the scenes. I wouldn't keep participating if I didn't believe that the purpose of the community is to increase exposure for authors of all caliber and professional distinction.

What are your fears exactly? I'm a little unclear about what you think might occur to your posts.

report this

3 years ago

This is a very interesting post and some important issues have been raised. I've never been a Facebook user, and after hearing about the current situation involving Facebook, I'm actually quite glad I never signed up. Like jes, I have a hard time imagining something sinister going on at Indigo, but I'm glad this topic has been brought up because I like to be informed and aware of what I have agreed to and what my rights are.

report this

3 years ago

-Message Deleted-

report this

3 years ago

It's all very interesting to think about - but I guess I'm not the kind to be fearful of this stuff.

ex.If I create a short story I know what my intention is for it and I don't post completed work on Facebook or here - if it's something that I intend to make money on (not happening anytime soon I don't think) or submitting it to a contest (which is more likely at present) then I don't share it in a public forum - copyright means very little online (anyone keeping up with the issues facing the music industry?) Anyone can copy my content and paste it all over the web - that's what the media is all about.... I don't understand the notion of 'exclusive' or 'protected' - if that's what you're after the internet is not where you should be...

report this

3 years ago

Zuckerberg at Facebook had the same response of we have no bad intentions, we don't intend to co-opt your content, but he bowed to pressure because he understood that that is exactly what the TOS did -- claimed ownership of people's content. The point of contracts or TOS is to spell out who owns what, who's liable for what, who can do what. "Trust me." as Zuckerberg said to Facebookers is not good enough when legal language always takes precedence over intentions in law and business.

As Facebook acknowledged, "we realized the new version of the Terms might technically permit some of the hypothetical situations people have offered." They're now drafting new TOS with input from users, who are after all the other half of the contract.

report this

3 years ago

This argument started some years back when major periodical and journals claimed moral rights from freelance writers, in fact publishing their work online and elsewhere without compensation ot the writers, in fact making wholesale changes, and even claiming authorship in some cases.
As a writer with first hand experience of unscupulous editors and publishers (I had my own case with a magazine for which I was a freelance editor and writer) I can assure you monitoring of excess claim to, and use of, moral rights is very much something about which to be concerned.
It is the edge of the slippery slope. And while I very much support and applaud the community that has been created here at Chapters, I won't for a moment be so naive as (cont')

report this

3 years ago

Uh, Jes, you seem not to understand copyright. Canada confers copyright on the creator of content. Copyright gives that creator the right to license the work to whomever they wish. By signing onto a site, I'm licensing that site to use my work. What I am NOT doing is giving over the copyright and moral rights to the site -- giving them the power and ownership over my work and the right to adjust it in a way that may harm my reputation. Just because some bad apples don't get the concept of copyright and copy stuff all over the place doesn't mean a large corporation ought to work as if copyright doesn't exist or doesn't matter to authors, PARTICULARLY when that co. works with authors. And no, that isn't what the web is all about.

report this

3 years ago

... as to assume good intentions from all. Nice thought. Just isn't reality. Especially when there is a fiduciary responsbility to balance the budget. Lesser evils have been committed in the name of 'god and profit' (a common medieval term that was often entered into ledgers).
It should be remembered once you, as a creator, have given up all rights to your work, in whatever form, those rights are nearly impossible to retrieve.

report this

3 years ago

Thanks for the post. I'm also concerned about the question of copyright and would like to see a cooperative approach. I recognize that Chapters-Indigo is a private corporation and their aim is to create a community that in one way or another benefts the corporation. As the host for this venue it makes sense for Chapters-Indigo to have some claim to Copyright but it would be great if this was in cooperation with the community rather than automatic and exclusive rights. If this cannot be established perhaps Chapters-Indigo would provide a link to a "Copyright Clearance" form so that authors could easily obtain permissions to reproduce their blogs / posts / reviews in other venues. Should a "Group" be created to discuss this issue?

report this

3 years ago

Kenneth, you make a good point about cooperation and how Indigo ought to work with users in fashioning the TOS. However, it doesn't make sense for Indigo to have any claim to my Copyrights. They only need to license them, as Amazon does, for example. And Lorina is right, once those rights are gone, it's impossible to retrieve them and would cost more than most writers can afford in legal fees. I remember that moral rights fight (never found out how it ended though as life took me elsewhere for a few years) Lorina talks about and how it seriously impeded my efforts to earn an income on my writing. It's eye-opening to compare the Canadian response here to Indigo's rights grab vs. international outrage to Facebook's similar rights grab.

report this

3 years ago

I'm not a lawyer - so no you are too right I can't speak to all the areas that copyright is meant to protect. I do; however, read the news. my point is not whether you own it or Indigo owns it - my point is that once you post content on the Internet everyone owns it.

I think many people are unclear as to what built the internet - it wasn't conceived of copyrights or the like. this is an open source medium - built on sharing information. whether it be a code or formulas or artwork or words - this is not a medium in which to covet ownership.

I agree that the legal team at Chapters should rethink the T&Cs - I'm not arguing the point of moral rights - I'm playing devils advocate over what we're actually under the impression owning?

report this

3 years ago

it's all in a name.

i post it on the internet so you can use it and share it how you see fit. but at least say "written by Jac Star" somewhere there...

report this

3 years ago

also, I feel that it is a reach to say that Indigo is seeking to take content and use it for for their own profit or for some other purpose - do we think that the company is going to republish the work elsewhere and try to sell it on the street? I don't understand this and it feels a little irrational ... Indigo isn't a publisher... nothing is getting produced... there is no magazine stealing words from the community for profit or gain.... the legal jargon is too loose and needs to be tightened - beyond that there is no evil villain at work here.. all the examples involve very different businesses...

again, the legal team should consider your concerns - and I love the idea of a community led initiative whereby everyone has a voice.

report this

3 years ago

I totally agree Jac Star- and that's how most modern artists view their work being shared online

radiohead is a perfect example - they gave their entire album away for FREE online and still managed to sell tons of albums and make money

I don't interpret the T&Cs to mean that community members can't post the content they share here on other sites or in other publications... I feel like that is assumed by the lack of clarification, but its not stated anywhere that an author isn't allowed to share their content or use their content elsewhere... seems like a lot of smoke and no fire to me...

report this

3 years ago

i find this a very intellectual read showing great examples for both sides.

I don't feel threatened by the Indigo TOS - but to add to your comment Jes "do we think that the company is going to republish the work elsewhere and try to sell it on the street? I don't understand this and it feels a little irrational ... Indigo isn't a publisher... nothing is getting produced... there is no magazine stealing words from the community for profit or gain"

I don't believe that Indigo would do any of these things, but their TOS simply states that they can and are able to. That part is kinda scary

report this

3 years ago

Jac Star- you and I are so on the same level ;-)

legal needs to do some soul searching ...

PEACE EVERYONE!!!

report this

3 years ago

:-) good night

report this

3 years ago

Wow, quite the discussion! Cool! Couple things jump out at me. Universities started the Net as a way to talk and enhance research; they never intended for it to be used to break copyright, after all their own work can lead to patents, which protect their rights to call their invention their own and to earn money on it, their creative work. Artists earn an income from their work -- why should they be denied the right to do that and the right to have a say in how their work is used just because it's a creative endeavour? People who respect copyright always attribute work; I believe and hope most Netizens do respect it, more anyway than used to, especially after newspapers rapped knuckles of those who ripped off their online copyrighted work.

report this

3 years ago

Radiohead couldn't have offered their songs for free if they did not have full ownership of copyright. If they'd licensed their songs in the traditional way to record companies, the record companies could've overridden their decisions on how they wanted to distribute their work. I believe that was discussed at the time, about how they could do that. Also, by offering their songs for free, they did not hand over the copyright to their listeners, they simply offered their listeners a chance to listen to their songs for free. It was a marketing ploy on their part, and notice it had a limited lifespan. They're not stupid. They knew if they offered their songs for free perpetually, they wouldn't earn much on them.

report this

3 years ago

Authors use this marketing tool too. If my book was published the traditional way, I could not offer free chapters to subscribers of my website without possibly violating the copyrights I had licensed to the publisher, which licenses the publisher would have paid me for in royalties. The publisher could, for example, allow Amazon or Google to show sample pages but prevent me from posting sample chapters of my own work on my own website. I write for free on my blog as a way to get people interested in my work; because I own and retain copyright on my stuff, it's my decision as to what to do with it, just as it's my decision as to where I can post it.

report this

3 years ago

For example, I can post the same article here, on my blog, and on Squidoo, where I can earn some money on my copyrighted articles. If Indigo owned the copyright, technically I couldn't do that (yup, kinda scary, glad we all agree on that! :) ). And if you the public owned it, I definitely couldn't even stick my name on it as the copyrighted owner (author) of the work.

BTW most modern artists don't consider their work as belonging to the public. They only differ with the record companies on how best to earn a buck on their creative endeavours. They'll go to court to defend the right to control use of their work, if need be. Copyright law and retaining copyright is what allows them to do that. JK Rowling recently did and won.

report this

3 years ago

Shireen, I agree. I think it works again Chapters-Indigo to claim exclusive copyright. I honestly don't know about the legal implications. I'm more familiar with Copyright re. the educational use of material, a different context.

Re. Facebook - "the Canadian response" is probably very similar in depth and concern to the international clamour of Facebook World . 26 concerned members in a community of 262 is the equivallent of 17 million Facebook-heads. :)

report this

3 years ago

I sent this discussion to my husband. As a writer, he also had much to discuss and asked me to share:

As someone who uses the Internet almost exclusively for their business, the statement made by Jes that "anyone can copy and paste something all over the Internet because that's what the media is all about" is both wrong and misleading.

It breaches not only the Digial Copyright Act but also numerous Creative Commons licenses and extended copyright protection acts. As soon as something has a digital footprint it belongs to the creator of the work. You don't need to have the copyright logo next to it (although it helps) - the work is recognised as yours.

cont'd

report this

3 years ago

Breaking that copyright can lead to fines of up to $5 million as well as 10 years in jail.

As far as allowing a community to use your work, postings, messages, etc - yes, as long as you're part of that community and you agree to their terms, that will be the case. However, it still needs to be accredited to the original party - failure to do so is breaching copyright.

When the user leaves that community, if they wish to take the copyright of any work they have created with them, then that is their right. Indigo, Facebook and any others trying to rescind that right would face a pretty swift and hefty legal rebuttal as well as lose huge amounts of goodwill with both users and non-community members alike.

cont'd

report this

3 years ago

Media is indeed for sharing, but not at the expense of signing your creative life away.


Danny Brown
Press Release PR
www.pressreleasepr.com
www.dannybrown.me

report this

3 years ago

well my opinion is one that comes from my own experiences - not I'm legally correct, but I think there are lots of people like me out there who don't always pay for music. I've been making mix tapes for my friends since I was 13.... not that I sell them but I don't pay Sony every time I burn a song... I truly believe that there are 2 ways of viewing this and as someone who supports street art, graffiti, hip hop, music that is sampled and remixed I'm of the mind that art online is more of a service then a product. I look forward to a revolution where we don't seek to limit, but to emancipate art.
The fan who was sued by G n R is a victim as far as I'm concerned, and the Avril Lavine fan who was sued exposed the gluttony of corporate law.

report this

3 years ago

I didn't know the fines could be that high! I'd forgotten too about the Creative Commons licenses.

Emancipate art??? Jes, you want your art for free, eh? :) So how would that work..hmm... well, tis true we artists are a magical lot, perhaps we could do without food, shelter, water, clothing, transport, books, artists' materials, studio time, computers, software, telephone, internet connection, editors, paper, pens, light, musical equipment, instruments, journals, industry magazines, etc etc and still create stuff. Or we could just work, maybe a service job like law, & squeeze out a song or two, an article or two or a mass market book in our spare time. Luckily born-rich artists would still be able to create the great works we all enjoy.

report this

3 years ago

Hi Everyone,

I appreciate everyone's participation in this discussion, and I think it's wonderful to be able to discuss these types of issues openly in our community.

Our legal team is working very hard to tackle the issue as soon as possible. They are discussing the Terms of Use at length with other legal experts to ensure your concerns are properly addressed.

I will be in touch as soon as I hear from them. Please know that we are doing all that we can to resolve this as soon as possible.

All the best,
Merlin

report this

3 years ago

Thanks Merlin - I love the turnaround at Indigo, that's for sure. Any problems are responded to and acted on immediately - so that's great.

My husband would like to add to Shireen's point (and I think he'll open his own account if this continues):

What would happen if everyone worked to that ethos? Then any books sold by Indigo could be downloaded free from the author's website, or from pirate file-sharing websites, instead of using Indigo. That'd put you, your friends and your bosses out of a job. Still want free *art*?

report this

3 years ago

Jes wrote: I look forward to a revolution where we don't seek to limit, but to emancipate art.
If by emancipation you mean not paying an artist for the work over which they laboured, then I'll stop writing. I'll stop painting. While I pursue these careers because they are part of who and what I am, I certainly am not going to give away my work for free, and it is naive, dare I say even criminal, for anyone to expect me to work without due remuneration. You want to read my story? Then you pay for it. How else are we, as artists, expected to put food on our tables, provide shelter, education for our children, clothes on our backs? By giving away our work? Really? Tell that to the financial institution that holds my mortgage.

report this

3 years ago

An example of my point would be libraries. They pay for or receive books and then share them freely and openly - that is more of where I'm coming from with my opinion. An open distribution.
I think we're coming from 2 very different view points: traditional & non-traditional. There are more ways to sell work then via copyright. Lots of artists create collections of their work without copyright to share fully aware that it could be re-used or altered without compensation. ex. mixed media, etc.

I think there are all kinds of ways to earn an income as a writer offline - we aren't talking about selling books - this is a discussion about ONLINE. This is specific to digital content and sharing that content with others in the online sphere.

report this

3 years ago

Oh but we are talking about selling books Jes. This is a book-selling site; one of the community's intentions is to foster the authors of those books. Most everything we do here is to help sell our books. That's known as non-traditional selling.

Instead of doing the traditional book tour, interviews, etc., to increase our profile and thus get people interested in our books, we interact with readers, fellow authors, indigo employees here; we write reviews; we blog on our own websites; we excerpt our books online. We still own copyright on all these writings, but we don't charge Indigo or Facebook or Twitter for licensing it because the aim is to let people know who we are, practice our writing, and generate interest in our books.

report this

3 years ago

Also just because the internet is a new medium doesn't mean it's exempt from paying artists, otherwise when TV was first introduced, one could have said that the free airwaves belong to the public and so actors should contribute their work sans being paid royalties, writers ought to write dramas out of love of the work, etc.

There are ways to earn money online. One is ads. I have started writing for a site that generates royalties for its writers through ads: Squidoo says, its "site is to make it easy for people to create free pages (called "lenses") on their interests, and to earn royalties for their good content." In this way it acknowledges that the authors own the copyright, and deserve renumeration. That's non-traditional.

report this

3 years ago

You can twist my meanings around all you like.

Indigo doesn't charge you for the service of providing a forum in which to network and grow your fanbase. There's no charge to you to pay the staff who manage the community - employees like Merlin. Who pays for the technology? The server? I notice that you're a Top Contributor Shireen- have you received any of the books to review as apart of the program? Did you receive those books for free?

I've stated several times that I agree that the T&Cs should be reviewed, but I think you are taking this too far and in some ways shooting the hand that feeds you. Indigo does not intend to sell your blog posts or comments nor limits whether you share those elsewhere- in fact they encourage it.

report this

3 years ago

I feel like a broken record - the T&Cs should be reviewed. This debate feels too much like semantics - because when you look at the actions of the company and the lengths they've gone to create something unique and special I think it's sad to get up in arms about something that is a misunderstanding - my opinion ain't worth much more then the breath that carries it. I'm not a legal rep. All of this is new ground. We - global 'we' - are all learning as we go with online content.
My beliefs and my opinions don't have to be shared by anyone else. I'm not telling anyone what to think. artists deserve rights - but online content is hard to control. I'm not speaking as a company rep. I'm speaking as an individual.

report this

3 years ago

I don't intend to twist your meanings, so if you're saying something different from what I and others are interpreting, please clarify! I actually don't know why I'm a Top Contributor. This discussion is the most work I've done here ever. Half the time I forget to log on! But I take my work here seriously: I try to write well and contribute something worthwhile. Indigo and I are doing the same thing -- they're providing this site and services for free, just as I'm providing my writings/reviews for free, in order to sell books. Our (my) reviews on their book pages help it compete with Amazon. I also do it for the personal connections and just cause I enjoy writing. Reading is harder for me, so I appreciate the opp to read and write reviews.

report this

3 years ago

No worries Jes. I (don't know about the others) know you're speaking as an individual, not as a rep for the company. And I should have let you know I did get your point about a good thing to review the TOS! I also appreciate your willingness to discuss all this!!

I'm realising this week that many social media sites like Facebook and this Community have much to learn about copyright, working with the contributors to fashion the TOS, and just writing the terms in language everyone can understand. It's great when Indigo responds quickly to our concerns, and I look forward to hearing back.

report this

3 years ago

Oh hey, I'm not a Top Contributor, I'm a Top Blogger! I don't even know what I am! LOL!! My comments above re how I am still apply though. :)

report this

3 years ago

Hello everyone,

This has proved to be an enlightening week, and a substantial debate. Our legal department is still reviewing the Terms of Use; as well as, all of your comments and concerns.

We hope to have an update soon. In the meantime, I hope everyone enjoys a nice and relaxing weekend!

All the best,
Merlin
Online Community Administrator
merlin@indigo.ca

report this

3 years ago

Jes wrote: 'Lots of artists create collections of their work without copyright to share fully aware that it could be re-used or altered without compensation. ex. mixed media, etc. '
It should be noted, Jes, that copyright is intrinsic to a created work. By virtue of the fact I write an original story, or paint an original painting, or create an original piece of music, ownership of that creation is mine, and mine alone, as safeguarded by international legal conventions ... until I chose to license a portion of that copyright.

report this

3 years ago

Jes also wrote: 'I think there are all kinds of ways to earn an income as a writer offline - we aren't talking about selling books - this is a discussion about ONLINE. This is specific to digital content and sharing that content with others in the online sphere.'
Current trends indicate that more and more writers are turning to online publications, and online methods of distribution, and so digital content is very much part of a writers' livelihood, and very much germane to this topic. I post excerpts of my books on my blog. Those excerpts often appear here. I own that work. That ownership is mine by virtue of international copyright conventions, as stated earlier.

report this

3 years ago

If each of us are to maintain ownership and copyright of the UGC (user generated content) that we create - then Lorina, you are not permitted to quote me, nor are you allowed to make reference to me. I opt to protect my "work" and I decide that I dislike the way you are using my words and might consider taking legal action if you do not remove my "work" from your comments.

How do you like them apples? This is a 2 way street. What is shared here belongs to the community.

I think Lorina should be able to quote me and I shouldn't own my words- because we're taking about UGC - in the Code of Conduct and Terms of Use it stats that no one is allowed to use copyright protected material without explicit consent.

report this

3 years ago

One of my favourite artists is a guy named Adam Neate.

Adam has been known to create pieces of artwork on pieces of cardboard and discarded materials. He then leaves these pieces on the streets of London for anyone to pick up.

He also holds shows at the Tate Modern, amongst other internationally renowned establishments.

When Adam leaves his artwork in a public place, his attitude is that its public property. When he holds a show at a gallery his is selling that work and it isn't for public 'use'.

report this

3 years ago

Well, to be technical, that's not quite true Jes. "The Copyright Act provides that any "fair dealing" with a work for purposes of private study or research, or for criticism, review or news reporting is not infringement. However, in the case of criticism, review, or news reporting, the user is required to give the source and the author's, performer's, sound recording maker's or broadcaster's name, if known." So it's perfectly OK to quote; of course it's respectful to always attribute.

By dint of holding copyright over his own works, Neate gets to decide what to do with his work. Some he gives out for free (like me on my blog), some he sells in a gallery (like my book). He couldn't choose if he didn't have the copyright law behind him.

report this

3 years ago

Whoa, Jes, let's back up here a bit. In no way was anything I wrote meant as an attack; I merely disseminated information.
Oh, and btw, quotations of public statements are, according to journalistic standards, quite within the limits of acceptablity. :-) (see <-- smiley, meant with a honest and open heart in the interest of expanding knowledge and brisk dialogue.)

report this

3 years ago

why are either of you under the impression that you are meant to supply original content here? who is telling you that you have to submit your "work" here? you are meant to connect with potential readers

this community was designed to allow ANYONE to express them self - openly and freely, but specifically to comment & share insights about books

honestly, I'm not interested to read your shortstory/whatever "work" you are up in arms about sharing. I'm here to talk about what I read & how it effects me and my life and to have interesting conversations with other community members. I don't think anyone's contribution in this community is worth more then anyone else. I think this is a public space, and not a place to share original work.

report this

3 years ago

But sometimes, Jes, an author will allow people an insight into what their latest work is about, post an excerpt, which, if you look at it objectively is another way of sparking conversation about books, writing and interesting conversations. Think of it as a virtual 'reading' you might otherwise attend at a bookstore.

report this

3 years ago

In the interest of saving bandwidth, I think we should wrap this conversation in this forum. Those who wish to continue elsewhere can do so.

report this

3 years ago

Maybe cause everything you write is original. I don't exactly copy other people's stuff! Heaven forbid!! Seriously, though, blog posts and reviews are original content. People get paid for book reviews in papers. Amazon reviews are written by professionals, some for free, some for a fee, some as copies of their copyrighted paid work from elsewhere. Indigo wants good reviews and interesting blog posts in order to compete with that behemoth Amazon, giving exposure as payment. And they want the credibility that authors (well, the famous ones anyway) bring.

Getting back to my original point, I still don't see the need for Indigo to own my copyright. And they certainly don't need me to waive moral rights.

report this

3 years ago

I don't wholly understand what all this means, but I have had my work (graphic designs mostly) lifted before and used by someone else, elsewhere. In fact one time I had a recruiter call me up and tell me my work I had presented to them wasn't my own. Another designer had lifted it from my site and claimed it for herself. After much back and forth the "misunderstanding" was taken care of in the effect that she was a conniving and thieving fraud and I was not.

report this

3 years ago

My concern is: I have set up a group here called The Typesetter Cafe. It's whole purpose is to help authors, designers, editors etc... meet, greet and sample. I would feel really bad if the work the authors and designers posted in the blog were suddenly considered Chapters.Indigo and not theirs anymore... regardless of the corporation's intentions in their TOS.

report this

3 years ago

I also have a group called The Delta of Venus, it's goal is to provide open discussion on topics of Sex and Art in literature etc...

I would HATE that one of it's member's quotes within the blog made it outside the group to a third party article. I would think it pretty bad if someone got raked over the coals because they said on the Erotica blog that they like men-on-men sex in their fiction. It sounds like Chapters.Indigo can do this without impunity regardless of whether they would or not. Is this correct?

report this

3 years ago

To your last question, yes. The way it's worded right now they can do whatever they want. The only caveat would be if their TOS, like Facebook's, says that privacy settings over-ride all else, meaning that if the blog post is in an area designated private, then regardless of their ownership of copyright, they can't copy it outside of the private area. But I don't know if Indigo has that caveat in their TOS or not.

That's another consideration that perhaps Merlin can ask the legal beagles about: do privacy settings supersede Indigo's TOS sections on copying, modifying, etc.?

report this

3 years ago

Annastacia: That was terrible, and I'm glad you got it sorted out in the end. But what a to do to have to go through.

That's precisely what copyright law is about -- to give you the legal clout and the means to protect your work, to prove it's yours, and to prosecute those who steal it.

report this

3 years ago

Crap. I don't know what to do about this. I guess I'll sit for a bit and see what the legal eagles come up with. But I might have to eventually post a "at your own risk" warning... which would hamper open discussion within the groups. >:-|

report this

3 years ago

That would suck. But the more people are aware of this situation and let Indigo know they don't like, the more likely Indigo will change it and faster too. Facebook did an about-face within days because of the flood of complaints -- and media coverage. Now Facebook is asking for member input and will draw up the new TOS in concert with the users, or so they say.

report this

3 years ago

Interesting links to check out:

http://www.ugcprinciples.com/

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/08/required-reading-user-generated-content-sites-io-g

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=2596

report this

3 years ago

Thanks for the links Jes! I tried to read the first one, but it was too difficult for me. The 2nd one -- I noticed that several sites now put up warning notices about not uploading copyrighted images/videos at the upload point. Veoh obviously worked to protect copyright from being infringed; the judge recognized that. These are fairly new practices, which is why the 3rd link no longer applies. In net time, it's too old.

I ought to have posted this link before: http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr00506.html

I'd like to add that here we're dealing with Little Copyright. None of us are Big Copyright like MS or Viacom. It's little copyright who're harmed the most in fight between Big guys and consumers.

report this

3 years ago

My links are for those who don't have a Law Degree from Google. It's just information - please don't attempt to assume my position by explaining what the difference is between Big and Little Copyright - no need to be patronizing.

Shireen, I think you and I are agreeing on most things, but you seem to be committed to arguing and not listening.

I agree that copyright protected material should be preserved, but I fail to understand the impassioned stance. Why not just provide a link from your profile to your blog? Are you copyrighting your book reviews? Are your comments included in your copyright? What are you specially being robbed of?

report this

3 years ago

perhaps this isn't specific, but i think we're being robbed of independance. It doesn't have to be a review or a blog, it could just be a meaningless comment made to any given post in the community.

Chapters has the right to take that away, twist it, quote it, whatever they want. They have all the power and we have none.

Perhaps you think they should have the power given it's their site. Fine, but that would make me not want to contribute anything in general. Not even a sentence. And i really don't think that's what they were going for when they created the site and the community.

I don't know much about the subject to argue it or agree. But I kinda like the right to my opinions

report this

3 years ago

Jac, I think your concern is the reason there are privacy settings. You are able to control what is seen and where it appears. As Merlin stated before, the general terms in the T&Cs was a bi-product of wanting clear permission to promote community content in marketing campaigns- you may have noticed that from time to time there is signage in the stores with authors’ pictures.

I think it needs to be clarified how the content will be used, but that's as far as it goes. I wouldn't agree that Indigo has all the power and we have none - if that were the case, this conversation would not be happening. We are free to say what we want. We are free to share what we want with anyone.

report this

3 years ago

At the end of the day, it's all about what you as an individual get out of the experience. I give my time for free because its fun to share.

For me, I enjoy practicing my writing skills for a crowd. I appreciate the instant gratification of someone telling me they enjoyed reading my review by sharing a comment. I like having discussions with authors and other community members, and as a Top Contributor I feel I'm rewarded.

As I said before, with my own writing - I don't share any work that I'm intending to use or perhaps one day sell within the community. I feel its important to take personal responsibility and I have a writing group to bounce ideas. This is more of a place to have discussions - not a place to show boat.

report this

3 years ago

Well, I don't know Jes, I thought by reading and then commenting on what I _read_ I was listening. Am I not supposed to comment? BTW did you check out the link I posted, the gov't's guidelines on copyright law, which is what we're saying Indigo ought to respect in their TOS? You (and others) have said you don't know much about this law. Perhaps as an aspiring author, it would be a good idea for you to learn. Too often writers (artists) love the art but hate the boring business part, much to their detriment. Successful artists don't make that mistake.

The links clause in the TOS is too vague for me to understand, and no one in authority has explained it. As I said in my post, it reminds me of the links clause Facebook put in its new TOS.

report this

3 years ago

yes, we are having this conversation. but Indigo/Chapters has the right to remove it, delete it, stop it, block it, change it do whatever they want.

That's my point. Just because we are having this conversation doesn't mean that we own it, or that we are independent.

report this

3 years ago

I guess I'm the sort who tries to form my judgments based on actions.

I've never witnessed any of the things mentioned on this site or in this community. It feels very Chicken Little "the sky is falling". None of these fears are from actions - its all assumption and speculation and accusation.

I look forward to this being cleared up soon and put to rest.

report this

3 years ago

yes, i agree on it being cleared up as we are now just talking in circles.
i was the first person to say that i wasn't worried that Chapters/Indigo would actually do anything against my morals or my work... But the fact is, they can, the way the TOS is written now. and THAT, Jes, is how the whole conversation started.

It's not Chicken Little, because the sky doesn't fall and cannot fall.
Preventing something before it happens is called being cautious

report this

3 years ago

Hi Everyone,

I want to assure you that we are doing our best to clear things up as soon as possible. I also want to assure you that we would never use any content inappropriately, and never intended to create Terms of Use that would have a negative effect on our community and it's members.

Thank you for your honesty, patience, and trust. We will clear this up very soon.

All the best,
Merlin

report this

3 years ago

Hi Merlin, thanks for keeping us informed. I hope it will be clarified and rewritten very soon!

report this

3 years ago

Hi everyone. Just to be clear, am NOT diving into the debate going on here.

However, there is a comment in one of Jes' posts that I feel the need to respond to. Libraries loan people books at no immediate cost to the borrower, but that does not mean libraries are free. They are basically part community infrastructre - taxpayers pay X amount of money based an a percentage formula and those taxes pay for things like hghways, hospitals and libraries. Yes, like hospitals and other parts of our infrastructure, are also subsdized by donations/fund raising events, but the main bulk of the money to build, stock, run and pay for staff, comes from government. Be it feds, provincial or municipal, taxes are where it somes from.

report this

3 years ago

Part 2 of 2

My point is that nothing is really a hundred percent free. It's just a question of who's actually paying for the service(s) or good(s) in question, which is often not always the person or people getting the most beneft out of it. I hope that makes sense.

Phew, just felt the need to say that and hope I haven't gone too far off topic or created another debate as that really is not my intention here.

As a side note, I just noticed that some of my phrasing on the first post I made looks a bit screwy. Sorry about that, certain keys keep sticking and I was too lazy to proof it before hittting the submit button. Oops. (Must stop eating crackers over the keyboard.)

report this

3 years ago

lol Wordsgood! is that a new badge? or has it been that long since i've seen you

report this

3 years ago

Yup, it's a new Badge! Merlin just bestowed it on me yesterday. I am most proud! Not sure why I got it, but still very proud. :-)

report this

3 years ago

yay! people nominated you because you're totally awesome... that's why you got it! congrats to you hun

report this

3 years ago

"Our music, our culture, our science, and our economic welfare all depend on a delicate balance between those ideas that are controlled and those that are free" – James Boyle

http://daledietrich.com/imedia/category/drm-tpms/artists-against-drm/

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sup_01_17_10_12.html

http://www.thebigidea.co.nz/article.php?sid=6728&mode=&order=0

"Unfortunately many people have a misunderstanding about what Copyright is. They see Copyright as property and any unauthorised use as theft (popular terms like "intellectual property" give the wrong impression of what Copyright is, and Hollywood's anti-piracy campaigns reinforce this misunderstanding)." THE CREATIVE FREEDOM FOUNDATION

report this

3 years ago

Merlin, I've written a review of the "archer sisters" book you sent me, but I'm loathe to post it on the Chapters site since this issue has not yet been cleared up. Facebook was wise enough to start a group that outlined their intent in writing and as a way to discuss the copyright issues while they worked on the TOS; the silence here makes me unsure as to how/if/when Chapters will change the TOS. Anyway, I've put the review on my website, and when I can will propagate it to my usual online places.

Jes, I haven't had a chance to look at those links as I've not been all that well. As soon as I can, I do intend to follow up.

report this

3 years ago

Hi Shireen,

You'll be pleased to know that we have a revised TOS which addresses the concerns expressed by the community. The new TOS is in the production queue for posting this week. When it's up, I'll let you know and post the key changes that are included.

In the meantime, if you'd prefer not to receive books for review in the future, please do let us know and we'll be happy to remove you from the program.

report this

3 years ago

Thanks Renee for giving us a heads up. I look forward to seeing it. I'll be able to decide better after that about my chapters online life. :)

report this