Uwe Zimmermann wrote:

> Hej Ken, hej all!
>
> I'm not a lawyer, nor am I firm in the juristic language (and by the way
> I'm not employed by or in any other way related to Yahoo) used in the
> USA or otherwhere on this planet (as these languages often differ quite
> a lot from the "common" languages). However, in the Terms of Service the
> now often cited and controversely discussed paragraph reads:
>
> "[..] By submitting Content to any Yahoo property, you automatically
> grant [..] 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. [..]"
>
> Well isn't it, what we expect Yahoo to do? Publish our pages on a
> worldwide basis?
>

> By the way, Yahoo is very concerned that the latter does not happen to
> your creations, if you read article 23: Copyright and Copyright Agents
> of the Terms of Service:

You can read a copy of the letter they sent out to everyone here
http://docs.yahoo.com/docs/info/toshelp.html

The problem is that the license is overly broad, but their representation
of it is narrow. For example, they mention that "The license exists for as
long as you continue to be a Yahoo! GeoCities homesteader, no longer" and a
few other 'rules'. However, their license states it is "perpetual", and
"irrevocable".

The problem is that the letter is nice and warm-fuzzy, _but is not legally
binding_!

Now, given Geocities track record with their privacy violations (probably
actually violating the law, not just their promises to users) I am a little
weary. Why not include those 'rules' from the letter in their actual
license agreement??? It's not to hard to state "for the sole purpose of" in
their legal document. Other on-line services do. It reminds me of Microsoft
pushing for exact wording in the right to 'integrate' products in their
original settlement with the Justice Department. Once they get the escape
clause in...

Now, I think that Geocities is improving, but that they should still be
held accountable to all their end-users, whom they are making a lot of
money off of already. At one time they possibly broke the law and sold
private end-user information to third-party marketing firms. What's to stop
them in the future from publishing magazine, etc. with our content and
images? Or from selling them to clip-art collections, _when it is currently
completely legal for them to do so_?????



This site has a good analysis of both the initial agreement, and of the
letter that they responded with:
http://copyright.focus-online.com/yahoogeocities.html

Post a reply to this message