Copyright vulnerability in the new terms 11 pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11
Posted: Tuesday, November 05, 2019 11:05:23 AM
Fuzzy Felosarix wrote:
RoyK_is_a_She wrote:
vivendulies wrote:
Thank you for listening.

Yes, maybe listening they are, but I would thank @Zazzle to RESPOND.

Tomorrow will be two weeks+ for all these topics. We are still looking for -

- Zazzle pays Royalties; not Designers paying Designers.

- Licensing terms which separate Create and MP.

- Privacy for Designer Attribution (longer than two weeks).

- Chat functionality that has at least the same functionality as the 80s and AOL (away messages; longer than two weeks). Privacy here too.

Instead of responding, it looks a lot like Padie and Scott have have been abandoned by their zPeers.

We need to make decisions regarding our futures here and holiday Royalty Rates, if staying. Doesn't seem like it's too much to ask to understand what we're basing those decisions on.

+1; I've been hanging about, waiting to see what the response is going to be to all of this.

The longer we go without any answers or a hint that they're at least considering changes to the new terms and policies...

...the more convinced I become that Zazzle has weighed some designers complaining/leaving against others staying (and not really realizing what's happening to their rights)...

...and that they've concluded there are 'acceptable losses'.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but convince me to come back. Convince others to stay. So far, that doesn't seem a likely outcome.


I just won an award (Top10 Energy Healer) which gives me some free exposure in a magazine and also a better price for an ad.
It will run in an online directory as well as a paper edition directory coming out in December.
I JUST remembered that the $99 ad I bought for this directory ad will include a url to my Zazzle store which, due to license conflicts plus so much more... will not exist much longer.

*** I ask the powers that be...if there is NO chance that I can stay and also retain an income...please let all of us know soon.

After putting in many 80 hours weeks for my Zazzle work/promoting..and obviously losing the much deserved/earned income I was "just" starting to make...it would nice if all of us who are being forced to leave would know for sure if it is, indeed over.
(Sadly funny... "Another one bites the dust" by Queen is now playing via my Pandora)
I think it is a sign.

Posted: Tuesday, November 05, 2019 11:47:38 AM
vivendulies wrote:

It is reckless to advertise digital content with a CC0 like wording when on the same time right next to it is content that isn't.

+1 Probably the best summation I've read so far of this part of the issues.
Posted: Wednesday, November 06, 2019 12:34:04 AM
I get the idea that Zazzle is moving towards a scenario where they would rather deal directly with the public and cut out the designers.

I really feel that with the new terms and conditions they are going to force through, they really would like all of us to close our stores, so that there will be no need for them to pay any designers at all.
Posted: Wednesday, November 06, 2019 4:38:02 AM
BeautifulBasics wrote:
I get the idea that Zazzle is moving towards a scenario where they would rather deal directly with the public and cut out the designers.

I really feel that with the new terms and conditions they are going to force through, they really would like all of us to close our stores, so that there will be no need for them to pay any designers at all.

Precisely.

** I suggest that before we tear our stores down to make videos of our designs. Just scroll slowly and make some short ones.
You can even store them on Youtube as well as an external drive.

Just set it to "Private". Make them under 10 minutes because there are limits in duration which in the moment I have to look up. It's really easy and worth protecting our designs with documentation.

I use a software called Screencast-o-matic. I think you can get a version of it for free. Not sure as I pay for it yearly.
There are groups on FB which go after the pirates. One of them is called Pirate Busters. They have been quite successful. It's also a very good place for us to meet. I would start a FB group for us myself...but rather busy right now.
My name is Anna Pizzoferrato if you want to find me. **



Posted: Wednesday, November 06, 2019 5:44:45 AM
BeautifulBasics wrote:
I get the idea that Zazzle is moving towards a scenario where they would rather deal directly with the public and cut out the designers.

I really feel that with the new terms and conditions they are going to force through, they really would like all of us to close our stores, so that there will be no need for them to pay any designers at all.



I really don't think so.

It would mean that Zazzle would be nothing but blanks and the Create tool with its' couple dozen templates, line icons and whatever some designers are willing to sign over as CC0 (since the download is free and customers can "do anything they want" with it.

The lucrative wedding department would cease to exist along with 99% of the lucrative business cards and nearly all of the lucrative Christmas cards.

Although Zazzle has more designer based content than it actually needs (thus they hide things unviewed for 15 months or 2 years for new products), they still are pretty dependent on designers uploading things. If all the glitter, llamas, unicorns and watercolor flowers disappeared (those often being on the front page), Zazzle would tank. They have Disney, Marvel etc. but they have to pay them just like they have to pay us, and those sellers aren't putting super popular unicrons and glitter all over their designs.
Posted: Wednesday, November 06, 2019 6:46:26 AM
BeautifulBasics wrote:
I get the idea that Zazzle is moving towards a scenario where they would rather deal directly with the public and cut out the designers.

I really feel that with the new terms and conditions they are going to force through, they really would like all of us to close our stores, so that there will be no need for them to pay any designers at all.


I don't feel that it is the end goal to eliminate designers but I do think they are trying to be all things to all people and in a world of specializing I personally think the focus should have remained laser sharp on what Zazzle already does well, instead of splintering off into a lot of different directions.

One of the biggest problems we see with the new terms is how broad they are in trying to cover everything with one document they leave huge vulnerabilities for the designers. They obviously were not written with designer needs in mind.

Anyway that is my two cents. (two more)

Opt outs, opt outs, opt outs... designers need opt outs!
Posted: Wednesday, November 06, 2019 7:23:32 AM
·▽·

I know conspiracy is fun. Could you take it to its own conspiracy thread. Thank you.

- - -

@zazzle

I hope, though late to the mess, ... I hope the license awareness has been registered and is discussed and seriously considered

you may suggest a license but leave the final word to the designer

- (c) All rights reserved
- CCn Whatever 3 commercial to 0 public domain like
- Angel license for crafters
- ...

And have it as a badge next to the design so the customer is aware what he can and cannot do with the purchase.

Posted: Wednesday, November 06, 2019 7:25:22 AM
BotanicalArt wrote:
vivendulies wrote:

It is reckless to advertise digital content with a CC0 like wording when on the same time right next to it is content that isn't.

+1 Probably the best summation I've read so far of this part of the issues.


We can't emphasis enough. Thank you.
Posted: Wednesday, November 06, 2019 7:49:44 AM
vivendulies wrote:
BotanicalArt wrote:
vivendulies wrote:

It is reckless to advertise digital content with a CC0 like wording when on the same time right next to it is content that isn't.

+1 Probably the best summation I've read so far of this part of the issues.


We can't emphasis enough. Thank you.


Whatever their motivation is for these changes, I, for one, have to leave.
I have no choice. I would be breaching licenses left and right as will be also put at risk are at least 50% of the designers who are like me that buy art.
I certainly hope these designers know what is going on. I, for one..often skip reading fine print.

I would hate to see unknowing designers slapped with a litany of breach of licenses/ contract lawsuits.

I might leave up some of my own art...but it is just an exercise in futility.

I did better and better every month.
80 hours a week for 2 years will get you some benefit.

I have a new Z youtube channel,an older Z FB page plus another niched new one, tons of Pinterest boards, affiliates that are enjoying income, promotional ads and more.
I know all of you also have the same amount of tear down to do.

Plus...I need to have a record of my designs so that I can replicate them later as I built them all using the creator tools...layers rather than with an image editor.
BIG MISTAKE.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 12:09:10 AM
It bugged me. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I mentioned before that I was held accountable for secondary content uploaded by a "fellow designer" (who was actually a thirteen year old kid) and offered a copyright violation in connection with my name on a print on demand service without my knowledge until I received the DMCA with a hefty bill attached before. I got lucky because it was a thirteen year old. The service footed the bill. They had no choice.

Zazzle do give me in writing that you will foot the bill, should any of the secondary designer upload an IP violation and I'm held accountable ... if I become collateral damage?

I finally asked my attorney if zazzles plans compare. My attorney says yes, they do. Primary content designer can be held accountable for violations within secondary content.

Back then my solution was simple. I opted out and no longer offered secondary content in my storefront.

- - -


I don't think the deactivation of the customize button is a good solution. Too often the customer needs to fix a font size or wants another color. The commissions are not high enough to fix it for customers all the time.

I don't mind the random act of kindness, but I don't want this to be the only recourse because otherwise I risk to loose my last shirt.

This is so not funny.
Sad
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 4:39:07 AM
vivendulies wrote:
It bugged me. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I mentioned before that I was held accountable for secondary content uploaded by a "fellow designer" (who was actually a thirteen year old kid) and offered a copyright violation in connection with my name on a print on demand service without my knowledge until I received the DMCA with a hefty bill attached before. I got lucky because it was a thirteen year old. The service footed the bill. They had no choice.

Zazzle do give me in writing that you will foot the bill, should any of the secondary designer upload an IP violation and I'm held accountable ... if I become collateral damage?

I finally asked my attorney if zazzles plans compare. My attorney says yes, they do. Primary content designer can be held accountable for violations within secondary content.

Back then my solution was simple. I opted out and no longer offered secondary content in my storefront.

- - -


I don't think the deactivation of the customize button is a good solution. Too often the customer need to fix a font size or wants another color. The commissions are not high enough to fix it for customers all the time.

I don't mind the random act of kindness, but I don't want this to be the only recourse because otherwise I risk to loose my last shirt.

This is so not funny.
Sad


Okay, I am sincerely trying to understand the point/motivation for this post.

1.Are you saying that all of us need to worry and protect ourselves from a risk of being sued because a secondary user does something?

2. You say not allowing customization is not a solution. What are you suggesting is the solution?
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 5:12:45 AM
MarBethHomeDecor wrote:
vivendulies wrote:
It bugged me. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I mentioned before that I was held accountable for secondary content uploaded by a "fellow designer" (who was actually a thirteen year old kid) and offered a copyright violation in connection with my name on a print on demand service without my knowledge until I received the DMCA with a hefty bill attached before. I got lucky because it was a thirteen year old. The service footed the bill. They had no choice.

Zazzle do give me in writing that you will foot the bill, should any of the secondary designer upload an IP violation and I'm held accountable ... if I become collateral damage?

I finally asked my attorney if zazzles plans compare. My attorney says yes, they do. Primary content designer can be held accountable for violations within secondary content.

Back then my solution was simple. I opted out and no longer offered secondary content in my storefront.

- - -


I don't think the deactivation of the customize button is a good solution. Too often the customer need to fix a font size or wants another color. The commissions are not high enough to fix it for customers all the time.

I don't mind the random act of kindness, but I don't want this to be the only recourse because otherwise I risk to loose my last shirt.

This is so not funny.
Sad


Okay, I am sincerely trying to understand the point/motivation for this post.

1.Are you saying that all of us need to worry and protect ourselves from a risk of being sued because a secondary user does something?

2. You say not allowing customization is not a solution. What are you suggesting is the solution?


Opt out of secondary content.
What is the point? I had the experience once and got lucky. Because the offender was a minor and the pod was better off to settle fast and did.

I can tell you that there is a risk. How big? I knew the last time that there is a strong possibility that there are infringements (that's just internet) but my store was fairly unknown and I still was among the unlucky ones, picked by the attorney to receive a DMCA. That I didn't have to pay attorney fees and licenses was due to the fact that the offender was a minor.

What's the point?
I want customization.
I don't want secondary content.

And well it doesn't just concern me. I brought it up before, but it was less founded since I hadn't asked an expert if the differences from then to the situation that zazzle is about to create compares. Well, I was right. It does. The possibility exists. It is rather likely that the create tool will sooner or later contain infringements and it is just a matter of time until this has consequences. Whether you and I are among the unlucky few,... nobody can tell you that.

Do you need to panic? I don't know if you are prone to panic. I do think you are overreacting to my concerns regarding copyright vulnerabilities. You have access to the pro posts. You know that I'm not the only one who consulted an attorney and expressed concerns.

I know I chime in with shelli:

OPT OUT OPT OUT OPT OUT!!!

And I would like customer to be able to change colors, re position design elements and change font sizes themselves. So I don't think to turn off customization is a good idea. It comes with too many downsides.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 5:26:32 AM
As it stands:

The download part needs to be defined to create tool only, so that designer with 3rd party content don't have a breach of contract with zazzle and the stockimage company.

Doesn't really bother me, I have very few 3rd party stockimages.

License awareness - customers need to be made aware, that most mp content is still (c) all rights reserved

At the very least German designer need an opt out, because any infringement comes with a bill that is at least half a month of average income and for many several months of zazzle income that goes down the drain.

I don't know how expensive it can get for the rest of the world. But considering zazzle delivers to Germany and has a DE domain, all zazzle is in German jurisdiction.

This is just concerning copyright vulnerability.

That many designer oppose the royalty share is a subject for this thread.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 6:38:32 AM
vivendulies wrote:
MarBethHomeDecor wrote:
vivendulies wrote:
It bugged me. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

I mentioned before that I was held accountable for secondary content uploaded by a "fellow designer" (who was actually a thirteen year old kid) and offered a copyright violation in connection with my name on a print on demand service without my knowledge until I received the DMCA with a hefty bill attached before. I got lucky because it was a thirteen year old. The service footed the bill. They had no choice.

Zazzle do give me in writing that you will foot the bill, should any of the secondary designer upload an IP violation and I'm held accountable ... if I become collateral damage?

I finally asked my attorney if zazzles plans compare. My attorney says yes, they do. Primary content designer can be held accountable for violations within secondary content.

Back then my solution was simple. I opted out and no longer offered secondary content in my storefront.

- - -


I don't think the deactivation of the customize button is a good solution. Too often the customer need to fix a font size or wants another color. The commissions are not high enough to fix it for customers all the time.

I don't mind the random act of kindness, but I don't want this to be the only recourse because otherwise I risk to loose my last shirt.

This is so not funny.
Sad


Okay, I am sincerely trying to understand the point/motivation for this post.

1.Are you saying that all of us need to worry and protect ourselves from a risk of being sued because a secondary user does something?

2. You say not allowing customization is not a solution. What are you suggesting is the solution?


Opt out of secondary content.
What is the point? I had the experience once and got lucky. Because the offender was a minor and the pod was better off to settle fast and did.

I can tell you that there is a risk. How big? I knew the last time that there is a strong possibility that there are infringements (that's just internet) but my store was fairly unknown and I still was among the unlucky ones, picked by the attorney to receive a DMCA. That I didn't have to pay attorney fees and licenses was due to the fact that the offender was a minor.

What's the point?
I want customization.
I don't want secondary content.

And well it doesn't just concern me. I brought it up before, but it was less founded since I hadn't asked an expert if the differences from then to the situation that zazzle is about to create compares. Well, I was right. It does. The possibility exists. It is rather likely that the create tool will sooner or later contain infringements and it is just a matter of time until this has consequences. Whether you and I are among the unlucky few,... nobody can tell you that.

Do you need to panic? I don't know if you are prone to panic. I do think you are overreacting to my concerns regarding copyright vulnerabilities. You have access to the pro posts. You know that I'm not the only one who consulted an attorney and expressed concerns.

I know I chime in with shelli:

OPT OUT OPT OUT OPT OUT!!!

And I would like customer to be able to change colors, re position design elements and change font sizes themselves, so I don't think to turn off customization is a good idea. It comes with too many downsides.


Okay, I asked for a clarification so characterizing it as me overreacting is inappropriate. I am also not panicing. So lets move on from that.

Your post is about a situation that no one wants to encounter. Now I don't own guns but if I did and legally sold one, I wouldn't expect to be liable if the buyer misused it. So, it is hard for me to think that someone else adding something illegally to my design would result in liability for me but you encountered it so I accept that as another "messed up" legality.

I asked for your clarification on your motivation to give you the benefit of the doubt since you repeated a situation no one wants to encounter and framed it so that designers either take the risk or leave. Because of your response, I now know that you are just trying to pressure Zazzle not designers.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 6:58:49 AM
I bet if we could poll all the other designers at the POD where this happened to Viven we would find that they were not all in Germany, we would find Americans as well and probably other countries.

Here is my point if it happened to them it could happen to us.

we must have the choice to opt out of the parts we don't want to or can't take part in.

So far the only choices I see are pretty drastic and potentially final.

ETA: If Zazzle doesn't want to rewrite the new terms... and it is looking that way to me, then opt outs for all features is the only other solution I can see that would be designer friendly.

I know user friendliness it a thing... well are we not users? according to the new terms we are all just users. How about making a user friendly choice for us and at least give us opt outs?

if you are tired of hearing me say this then give us opt outs...




Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 7:17:51 AM
•••

It needn't be added to the design. The issue is the appearance that we facilitate the infringement. If someone opens the designer tool, our icon and name is now branded and to the outside we actively are linked to the content.

This is also the case with the secondary content. It doesn't matter that we have no say aside from disallowing customization altogether and therby throwing the baby out with the water so to speak.

You are not liable for selling the gun, but for not making sure that you don't sell to an obviously minor who has a reputation for violence. To make the analogy.

Secondary content IP violation liability
It is not about adding the IP violation. It only takes a screenshot that it is available with our content and that it appears as if we sort of condone it.

@MarBethHomeDecor
Sorry, for overreacting in regards to your motivation I took quiet a few blows against my person in the last few days. I'm still a little sore and grumpy because of it.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 7:21:11 AM
BeautifulBasics wrote:
I get the idea that Zazzle is moving towards a scenario where they would rather deal directly with the public and cut out the designers.

I really feel that with the new terms and conditions they are going to force through, they really would like all of us to close our stores, so that there will be no need for them to pay any designers at all.


I disagree. I believe the goal here is to keep designers so they can save on licensing fees. The icons they have available for customers to use now cost them money and designers don't get to use them either. There are actually designers out there who will allow free download and sharing of their images and photos all over the internet. Zazzle seems to want to tap into that market. They've worked hard getting their printing services at the current level, can't see them throwing that away any time soon.

Really, in all the years I've been around here and the number of issues, I've never considered that Zazzle is purposefully trying to screw over its contributors, it's more likely just them getting an idea and running with it without thinking too much about the impact details.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 8:08:20 AM
MARGARET CHAYKA wrote:

Quote:
...it's more likely just them getting an idea and running with it without thinking too much about the impact details.


Isn't it their responsibility to do so??? Just thinking out loud...
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 8:31:59 AM
[I've never considered that Zazzle is purposefully trying to screw over its contributors, it's more likely just them getting an idea and running with it without thinking too much about the impact details.]
Highly unlikely. This is no junior fly-by-night operation. They know what they're doing and have calculated the risks. They may not hit the mark for designers but you can be sure they will hit the mark for themselves...IMO
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 9:49:11 AM
vivendulies wrote:
•••

@MarBethHomeDecor
Sorry, for overreacting in regards to your motivation I took quiet a few blows against my person in the last few days. I'm still a little sore and grumpy because of it.


You are not the only one who took hits and it alienated me someone, who appreciated the information I was receiving, who was evaluating it, and who it made sense to, but who was concerned that the way it was being presented might be causing issues. So I did not give public support but Zazzle's silence bothers me just as much. I will be curious what Zazzle will look like on November 23.

My sister and I have a plan but it may need revision. I like what Leah said that if customization is not allowed then the customer comes to us and we edit (no collaboration). From what is being said and being allowed to be said with no real challenge or counter proof of intent by Zazzle, we may go with the strictest protective actions for ourselves.

Zazzle, another company, where we work, started having an issue Labor Day weekend because of a broken promise by an employee The employee was fired by October 1 but another issue arose and guess what that company had to get a weeks extension and pay significant bonuses to get a contract filled which has not happened in previous years. The contract company is apparently coming back with a new order and we will see how that goes. However, the company is also paying bonuses to get another contract filled.

I am curious what people are doing and are going to do. I am waiting to see.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 10:59:47 AM
Okay, since we are busy, we are not waiting. We were going to refocus MarBeth Business, and some of the designs that we value were on business products, so it is empty waiting to be repopulated with products that. as of today, will have templates but no customization. MarBeth Four Seasons only has one design left, but as of today, the products there may have to be hidden until we can recreate them with no customization. We have a few other designs that we value that will be coming down, but as of today, we may have to hide all other products until we can republish them with no customization allowed.

We had planned on re-evaluating our designs and trying to add more upscale trendy designs. Now, we are among those removing valued designs, but as of today. we are concerned about appearing to consent to copyright infringement.


We will now state that we need opt out options also, as well as, being able to change to "no customization" for products that are already published without having to tear them down and republish them.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 11:17:46 AM
I have not agreed to anything specifically, regarding the create tool. I have not been asked to provide content or participate in the create tool. I don't use the create tool, except for making category cover images. I do use 3rd party images...not as many as I used to. But, still, designs with 3rd party images are in my stores.

I've been hanging back and watching to see what happens. I was under the impression the copyright vulnerability discussion was only for those designers offering images to the create tool.

Will this issue impact me, and other designers who are not affiliated with any create tool program? I'm a little hazy on it.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 11:36:35 AM
SK DesignWorks wrote:
I have not agreed to anything specifically, regarding the create tool. I have not been asked to provide content or participate in the create tool. I don't use the create tool, except for making category cover images. I do use 3rd party images...not as many as I used to. But, still, designs with 3rd party images are in my stores.

I've been hanging back and watching to see what happens. I was under the impression the copyright vulnerability discussion was only for those designers offering images to the create tool.

Will this issue impact me, and other designers who are not affiliated with any create tool program? I'm a little hazy on it.


the simple answer is yes it could (keyword), if a secondary content element is a copyright violation and is added to your marketplace design it can make it seem that you were a party to the copyright infringement. it could be ruled as guilt by association as in the example that Viven gave somewhere in the feedback.(sorry I can't remember which thread that was)

I don't know what kind of vetting (if any ) will be in place for create content but probably the same as there is for the MP... essentially none.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 11:41:10 AM
They do check what people are purchasing. That's how some marketplace violations are found.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 11:42:22 AM
Maz wrote:
They do check what people are purchasing. That's how some marketplace violations are found.


true and I should have specified that I meant vetting of designs before publishing by designers.

only the agreement we check the box... that is the only vetting I see. and I am not advocating it. I only mentioned it because it is part of the vulnerability.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 11:52:50 AM
Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
SK DesignWorks wrote:
I have not agreed to anything specifically, regarding the create tool. I have not been asked to provide content or participate in the create tool. I don't use the create tool, except for making category cover images. I do use 3rd party images...not as many as I used to. But, still, designs with 3rd party images are in my stores.

I've been hanging back and watching to see what happens. I was under the impression the copyright vulnerability discussion was only for those designers offering images to the create tool.

Will this issue impact me, and other designers who are not affiliated with any create tool program? I'm a little hazy on it.


the simple answer is yes it could (keyword), if a secondary content element is a copyright violation and is added to your marketplace design it can make it seem that you were a party to the copyright infringement. it could be ruled as guilt buy association as in the example that Viven gave somewhere in the feedback.(sorry I can't remember which thread that was)

I don't know what kind of vetting (if any ) will be in place for create content but probably the same as there is for the MP... essentially none.

As someone who uses 3rd party clip art, I can't give away to Zazzle that which is not legally mine. I am allowed to use the clip art X amount of times and only (depending on license level) show my designs (which include their art) on 1 Social Media account. That is why I have no choice but to take down almost my whole shop.
Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 1:01:52 PM
SK DesignWorks wrote:
I have not agreed to anything specifically, regarding the create tool. I have not been asked to provide content or participate in the create tool. I don't use the create tool, except for making category cover images. I do use 3rd party images...not as many as I used to. But, still, designs with 3rd party images are in my stores.

I've been hanging back and watching to see what happens. I was under the impression the copyright vulnerability discussion was only for those designers offering images to the create tool.

Will this issue impact me, and other designers who are not affiliated with any create tool program? I'm a little hazy on it.



Case one: You need to defend against a thief who stole from your zazzle account
Right this moment all of the MP creations can be associated with the way the create tool is advertised. We are affected as it is. But because it takes time until the worst of the worst sniff blood in the water there hasn't been a case.

Right now you can also point to the terms and say "Sorry, I didn't give permission, see here in the terms no download granted"

After 11/22 the art thief can point to the terms and argue, "see here in the terms all zazzle designer allowed the download and here on the site it says do whatever where ever" This makes it harder to defend your copyright.


Case two: You offer stockimage material in your zazzle account
And if you have third party content from stockimage sites you are almost in all cases in breach of contract. This holds true for all content with stockimage material not just in the create tool, because the terms include all content and not just create tool content.


Case three: Secondary content is violating intellectual properties
If as I understand zazzles plans correctly, secondary content is offered in a tab in the MP design tool and more and more designer are allowed to contribute the more likely it is, that there will be stolen art or art that violates a trademark in the digital secondary content. The attorney can open any MP product on zazzle and find the infringing content offered with this product by zazzle and the primary content designer of that product. Because it appears this way. It doesn't matter that you had no idea it was there. It is like sitting in a car while your drunken friends lift a liquor store. It doesn't matter whether you knew they would, you still appear to be the getaway driver.


Back to the IP violation in secondary content.
When it happened to me, I had no clue it was there. I allowed all content from all designer in a design tool to create and edit my designs. My attorney tells me, that it doesn't matter that in zazzles case we are not mentioned in the impressum, we are still associated with the violating content via the new designer icon in the lower left corner and can be held accountable.

I asked my attorney if what happened years ago on the other site can happen here on zazzle, too, and if I could be again one of the unlucky few, who are held accountable. And he confirmed what I suspected. Yes, because it appears as if I offered the secondary content so I'm also to some extend responsible.

Not every primary content designer will belong to the unlucky few. It is like winning the lottery. The only difference you don't get money but pay money. Back then the attorney wanted €650 Euro plus €100 for license fee. That was as cheap as it can get for an infringement in Germany. If the print service hadn't reacted quickly I most like would have added the costs of my attorney to the bill. But I got lucky aside from two days of worries and anger I suffered no ill effect back then. Next time I might not be among the unlucky few ... but I prefer not to take the chance at all.

My income on zazzle is not high enough to take this risk.


Posted: Thursday, November 07, 2019 1:54:54 PM
vivendulies wrote:
SK DesignWorks wrote:
I have not agreed to anything specifically, regarding the create tool. I have not been asked to provide content or participate in the create tool. I don't use the create tool, except for making category cover images. I do use 3rd party images...not as many as I used to. But, still, designs with 3rd party images are in my stores.

I've been hanging back and watching to see what happens. I was under the impression the copyright vulnerability discussion was only for those designers offering images to the create tool.

Will this issue impact me, and other designers who are not affiliated with any create tool program? I'm a little hazy on it.



Case one: You need to defend against a thief who stole from your zazzle account
Right this moment all of the MP creations can be associated with the way the create tool is advertised. We are affected as it is. But because it takes time until the worst of the worst sniff blood in the water there hasn't been a case.

Right now you can also point to the terms and say "Sorry, I didn't give permission, see here in the terms no download granted"

After 11/22 the art thief can point to the terms and argue, "see here in the terms all zazzle designer allowed the download and here on the site it says do whatever where ever" This makes it harder to defend your copyright.


Case two: You offer stockimage material in your zazzle account
And if you have third party content from stockimage sites you are almost in all cases in breach of contract. This holds true for all content with stockimage material not just in the create tool, because the terms include all content and not just create tool content.


Case three: Secondary content is violating intellectual properties
If as I understand zazzles plans correctly, secondary content is offered in a tab in the MP design tool and more and more designer are allowed to contribute the more likely it is, that there will be stolen art or art that violates a trademark in the digital secondary content. The attorney can open any MP product on zazzle and find the infringing content offered with this product by zazzle and the primary content designer of that product. Because it appears this way. It doesn't matter that you had no idea it was there. It is like sitting in a car while your drunken friends lift a liquor store. It doesn't matter whether you knew they would, you still appear to be the getaway driver.


Back to the IP violation in secondary content.
When it happened to me, I had no clue it was there. I allowed all content from all designer in a design tool to create and edit my designs. My attorney tells me, that it doesn't matter that in zazzles case we are not mentioned in the impressum, we are still associated with the violating content via the new designer icon in the lower left corner and can be held accountable.

I asked my attorney if what happened years ago on the other site can happen here on zazzle, too, and if I could be again one of the unlucky few, who are held accountable. And he confirmed what I suspected. Yes, because it appears as if I offered the secondary content so I'm also to some extend responsible.

Not every primary content designer will belong to the unlucky few. It is like winning the lottery. The only difference you don't get money but pay money. Back then the attorney wanted €650 Euro plus €100 for license fee. That was as cheap as it can get for an infringement in Germany. If the print service hadn't reacted quickly I most like would have added the costs of my attorney to the bill. But I got lucky aside from two days of worries and anger I suffered no ill effect back then. Next time I might not be among the unlucky few ... but I prefer not to take the chance at all.

My income on zazzle is not high enough to take this risk.




I agree vivendulies. You already went through this once. It was a curse but also a learning life moment which has made you all the much wiser. Thank for explaining it so well.
I knew "something" was going on when recently, very close in time, two different customers were expecting me to honor their request of just giving them my image file if they bought the business card.
It is the expectation of a freebie mindset and it will get worse.

Regardless...I am not going to put myself at risk by gambling.
I need my sleep. Once again, I feel so horrible for the designers who are simply unaware and think life is good here. Lawsuits will fly and lives will be destroyed...and no...I am not being a drama queen.

If I only bought from 10 artist who will know I have wronged ...imagine the $$$ fallout. Staying would be financial suicide.
I will probably leave my very few done-by-me art works here for a while until things wind down to a stop and I receive payment for my pendings.
Posted: Friday, November 08, 2019 5:32:23 PM
sugarhai wrote:
it's true, what Vivendulies says is all correct

plus

The copyright to any Content that results from a Collaboration, whether a “final” product or in-progress (collectively, “Collaborative Content”), may be jointly owned by all Collaborators under 17 U.S. Code Title 17, but each hereby agrees that THE RIGHT TO EXPLOIT THE COPYRIGHT TO THE COLLABORATIVE CONTENT ON THE SITE AS A “PUBLIC” PRODUCT SHALL BE EXCLUSIVE TO THE INITIATOR OF THE RELEVANT COLLABORATION SESSION (“Collaboration Initiator”). EACH COLLABORATOR HEREBY GRANTS TO THE COLLABORATION INITIATOR A NONEXCLUSIVE, PERPETUAL, WORLDWIDE, SUBLICENSABLE AND TRANSFERABLE RIGHT AND LICENSE TO USE, COPY, REPRODUCE, PREPARE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF, MODIFY, PUBLICLY DISPLAY, PERFORM AND DISTRIBUTE ASSETS AS CONTAINED IN THE COLLABORATIVE CONTENT ON THE SITE. For the sake of clarity:



zAZZLE I truly honestly couldn't image that you pull such a move?

You DO KNOW that NONEXCLISIVE means anywhere, right? Not just on zazzle!

You DO KNOW that SUBLICENSABLE AND TRANSFERABLE means your competitors included, right? So you hand out what isn't yours to anyone?

Any dumb nut can grab any design initiate a "collaboration" add a dot and it is in progress and whooooosh it can legally end up anywhere.
Didn't you learn anything about the internet?
What the internet user can take the internet user will take and with this we the designer can't even play wack a mole with DMCAs.

This test shows how anybody can initiate a collaboration on anything. That's a free for all.
Posted: Friday, November 08, 2019 6:01:02 PM
Did I not say they were about to self destruct?
Users browsing this topic
Guest, Fuzzy Felosarix


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
Print this topic
RSS Feed
Normal
Threaded