James' announcement in News Forum 11/13/19 10:46 pm 15 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... Last
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 2:43:57 PM
northwest4art wrote:
I just want to make clear that I am one who would likely benefit from some secondary content but the manner in which it was introduced does not come across as beneficial overall without options.

piggybacking - look it up, it's not necessarily a bad word. It's like when someone taps into (piggybacks) off your wireless unbeknown to you and your broadband does not support the extra usage and it takes 5 minutes to turn the page. And they downloads stuff they're not supposed to. You get the call from your service provider.

symbiotic relationships - look it up, it's not all bad. I once heard an IT professor mention symbiotic relationships to a student and I thought this classification and terminology must apply to technology in addition to biology. If it applies to technology and biology, maybe it applies business models too, like business partnerships. And if so, maybe zazzle should look more closely at who benefits and how, taking into account overall impacts, positive and negative, the current model has.

An image library would be good but it should be at the customer's disposal, owned and operated by zazzle without impact to designers, zazzle can charge or not for it, up to them. The current model does not allow mutual consent between primary and secondary designers without an opt out option. I think the best model would be an opt out and an image library owned and operated by zazzle as part of their platform.



I totally agree,

and also with whoever it was that said it is no different than the icons and we don't have to pay for those.

again SC designers should absolutely get paid for their work... it is who is having to pay that I think is wrong.

I gave the analogy of a restaurant before... if I order extra side orders they charge me for them. They do not make the waitress or the chef pay for them.
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 2:55:03 PM
@Shelli - it seems so complicated sometimes but then simple, too. Maybe they are using the royalty share to cover the cost of an image library test run? It would make sense not to take the risk on themselves without seeing how it goes and the royalty share between designers was an alternative?
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 3:32:41 PM
northwest4art wrote:
@Shelli - it seems so complicated sometimes but then simple, too. Maybe they are using the royalty share to cover the cost of an image library test run? It would make sense not to take the risk on themselves without seeing how it goes and the royalty share between designers was an alternative?


makes sense for their bottom line maybe but why should we have to pay for their gamble? I wonder if the risk was worth it?
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 3:35:11 PM
Gina ©gleem wrote:
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:

If the design community is divided and turning on each other you need to lay that blame where it belongs... at Zazzle's doorstep.


•Exactly!

But, and I have said this before, I also don't understand why one has to turn on the other for having differences of opinion and wanting different things. *You* do what is best for *you* and I will say nothing against it. I will do what is best for me and no one should say anything against that.


🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
I am not against anyone for wanting to make money. I am not against anyone who wants to give away their work for free.


•Ditto!

🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
I am against the new business practice that wants me to pay for extras and call it a royalty share.


•Ditto that! And to avoid it, I have taken the only option I have: I have hidden all products that allow for customization and am only posting products that don't allow for it.


I am sorry the issue is not at Zazzle's doorstep. When you post, you decide what you are going to discuss, and the tone that you use toward your fellow designers. Your post should be about the issues of collaboration, chat, carveout, licensing, and privacy. Any reference to those who support or don't support any of those issues are really not needed especially if words used are negative, snide, sarcastic, etc.
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 4:10:47 PM
MarBethHomeDecor wrote:
Gina ©gleem wrote:
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:

If the design community is divided and turning on each other you need to lay that blame where it belongs... at Zazzle's doorstep.


•Exactly!

But, and I have said this before, I also don't understand why one has to turn on the other for having differences of opinion and wanting different things. *You* do what is best for *you* and I will say nothing against it. I will do what is best for me and no one should say anything against that.


🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
I am not against anyone for wanting to make money. I am not against anyone who wants to give away their work for free.


•Ditto!

🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
I am against the new business practice that wants me to pay for extras and call it a royalty share.


•Ditto that! And to avoid it, I have taken the only option I have: I have hidden all products that allow for customization and am only posting products that don't allow for it.


I am sorry the issue is not at Zazzle's doorstep. When you post, you decide what you are going to discuss, and the tone that you use toward your fellow designers. Your post should be about the issues of collaboration, chat, carveout, licensing, and privacy. Any reference to those who support or don't support any of those issues are really not needed especially if words used are negative, snide, sarcastic, etc.


Many times the tone you read in is not the tone that was written in. When I mentioned a divided design community I was referring to the division that Zazzle made by having two design tools with two groups of designers and the way they are structuring the royalty payments.

That is at Zazzle's doorstep.

Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 4:18:33 PM
Is anyone noticing that listings are now showing personalized rather than customize?
When you click on it as far as I can see it all appears to be the same as it was yesterday..... or has this been slowing the change and I am just slow? It appears random?

Oh my gosh another thing now?


And I have to ask..... those that are not signing on after the 22 bc that means you auto agree with the new terms - how will you know if things are reversed or better - how will you be able to read the forum and know what/when to unhide if you do not log on? Love

I am so distressed over this.... all I wanted to do is decorate and start thinking about what I was baking for Thxsgiving - and starting my cookie baking for Christmas..... ZAZZ has TOTALLY ruined the holidays for me! Crying
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 4:26:42 PM
Dear Zazzle

This is hopefully a new point. I have worked retail and when I go into a store and see thin inventory and inventory from certain companies not on the shelves, it is not helpful to me as a customer and I figure the company is in financial trouble.

There are several issues -- collaboration, chat, carveout, licensing, and privacy -- that are upsetting designers. Some designers will accept none of these features. Some will accept some but not all. Some will accept all. Designers have asked for opt outs. You have made some effort to address some of the issues but designers, who want first, opt out, and second, customization after publication, without it, are being left with only two options hide products and remake them or leave. This appears that it only affects those designers that make those decisions because they lose order history, view history, and zrank. Yes, it is your platform and you have the right to set the terms.

However, there is other fallout. The broken links to remade and deleted products hurt affiliates and as I understand it would hurt Zazzle in Google searches.

Then, there are the customers. Say they go to one of my Pinterest boards and they find broken link after broken link. Their impression is that something is wrong with Zazzle with all the broken links.

Furthermore, I sold some Fourth of July invitations and the lady came back and bought more. I sold three travel mugs to one customer and a customer from the same city bought two. I guess there is a way for customers to reorder merchandise but customers are also the losers when products and designers disappear and by default, so does Zazzle.

My suggestion -- implement customization after publication and incorporate opt out on all features added to Zazzle at implementation in case there are issues that need to be fixed to prevent snowballing effects.
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 4:30:49 PM
Ohhhhilovethat wrote:
Is anyone noticing that listings are now showing personalized rather than customize?
When you click on it as far as I can see it all appears to be the same as it was yesterday..... or has this been slowing the change and I am just slow? It appears random?

Oh my gosh another thing now?


And I have to ask..... those that are not signing on after the 22 bc that means you auto agree with the new terms - how will you know if things are reversed or better - how will you be able to read the forum and know what/when to unhide if you do not log on? Love

I am so distressed over this.... all I wanted to do is decorate and start thinking about what I was baking for Thxsgiving - and starting my cookie baking for Christmas..... ZAZZ has TOTALLY ruined the holidays for me! Crying


You can enter and read the feedback forum as a guest.

Go focus on baking and Thanksgiving for a while. Enjoy yourself.
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 4:31:42 PM
Ohhhhilovethat wrote:
Is anyone noticing that listings are now showing personalized rather than customize?
When you click on it as far as I can see it all appears to be the same as it was yesterday..... or has this been slowing the change and I am just slow? It appears random?

Oh my gosh another thing now?


And I have to ask..... those that are not signing on after the 22 bc that means you auto agree with the new terms - how will you know if things are reversed or better - how will you be able to read the forum and know what/when to unhide if you do not log on? Love

I am so distressed over this.... all I wanted to do is decorate and start thinking about what I was baking for Thxsgiving - and starting my cookie baking for Christmas..... ZAZZ has TOTALLY ruined the holidays for me! Crying


I didn't notice the personalize thingy

I have just about decided to stay on with limited content that does not include the things I want most to protect. but even if I didn't the public can still read much of the forums as a guest.

I know how you feel about being stressed out to the max over this whole situation and I hope you find a way to still enjoy your holiday!

it makes me sad Sad
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 4:34:42 PM
Ohhhhilovethat wrote:
I am so distressed over this.... all I wanted to do is decorate and start thinking about what I was baking for Thxsgiving - and starting my cookie baking for Christmas..... ZAZZ has TOTALLY ruined the holidays for me! Crying


I agree - have so many other things I should be doing rather than this. Sad
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 5:03:04 PM
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
vivendulies wrote:
Colorwash wrote:
vivendulies wrote:
Dale M. Boyce wrote:
In my humble opinion, I think all of you who are deleting your products and stores are making a HUGE mistake. Do you really think that Zazzle is out to get their designers, the one who made them what they are today in the first place?


BTW: I take offence by panic wagon. This is cool risk assessment with the aid of professionals in the field (aka copyright attorneys).

I believe she wasn't referring to you at all but to those who are deleting their products and closing their stores.


And that includes me, because, I hid a soon as I had tested the collaboration for myself and understood how the collaboration tool works and hoped for a solution as long as I could and now I'm deleting anything that I want to defend in any time of the future so I won't running into trouble in any dispute because of zazzle terms. [EDIT]And others probably won't appreciate to be painted hysterical, what is implied by the term panic wagon.[/EDIT]



I do agree that "panic wagon" feels derogatory and not appreciated by me either.

Trying to warn others that "hey, something isn't right here" is a far cry from "panic wagon"


I was speaking specifically about folks closing their stores before they have all the answers from Z. To me, that is panicking.

I'm not taking issue with questioning the new policies. Heck, I have lots of questions, too.

It certainly was not my intention to offend anyone. I am the most non-confrontational person you'll ever meet and wouldn't hurt someone intentionally for all the tea in china.
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 5:32:15 PM
Dale M. Boyce wrote:
It certainly was not my intention to offend anyone. I am the most non-confrontational person you'll ever meet and wouldn't hurt someone intentionally for all the tea in china.


I concur. It's too bad you wanted to try to help some of your fellow designers, Dale. I wish you wouldn't have. You're too nice to now be (for a better word) grumbled at. But tension is high here, that's why I stay quiet. But in this case I want to stand up and would like to scream, but I'll say this nicely.

Dale meant well, and is now made feel bad for it. What a bunch of 'fellow' designers' you all are. 'I feel offended because you said this'... 'I feel offended because you said that'... Yuck, and that is 'our' Zazzle community? Despicable... I hope you ALL feel offended because I said that.

A lot of you are winded up about everything that is going on, and that's understandable. But can we just have a little sense of normalcy here, and treat eachother kindly? Not every fart needs to be taken personally or offensive.
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 5:56:28 PM
Instead of opt out, why not opt in? And Zazzle set a specific period for an opt in trial run, like they do with royalty changes, that will give them a firm commitment from the opt ins so they can measure the results at the end of the period. The opt in for a specific period would also pressure the royalty share (if they must go that route) to be equitable in the compensation. The results of the period and royalty share (if the must go that route) might help them to decide how much to purchase the images submitted for by designers for secondary content so they can have full ownership since they will have the right to use them how they want anyway, and then offer the image library at no cost as part of their platform. The period would help to determine if an image library is feasible. Just a thought.

@ArtAttic & Dale - Some may have more invested in their work than others and maybe why differing opinions, different viewpoints, but we are all in this together, no more or no less than others - and I mean it in a good way.

Edit: An opt in option would also relieve the Chat auto reply thing for those who do not participate in the opt in if it were tied to the opt in.
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 6:05:38 PM
-·-

I read this 'if I not log in' so many times; it is baffling.
According to previous US court ruling you don't have to log in in order to accept those terms. Running a storefront full or emptied out is using the site. Using the site is using the site under those new terms.


You have to actively close the account. That is informing zazzle of your intent in good time meaning before or at least shortly after.

Here is the good news however any design you delete terminates the license for this design with zazzle so the design can't be used legally in a collaboration.
But because zazzle is known for selling without a license, meaning selling designs that have been deleted years after they where deleted and every time a customer opens customize he has a copy in his 'saved design' area that apparently isn't deleted, when we delete. So you have to inform zazzle properly about the designs you deleted. You need to keep a record and make sure zazzle is doing its due diligent by actively removing those copies.

Anybody who uses stockimages still grants zazzle a general license to offer for download. That they added an intent to the clause doesn't change this fact.
Anybody who uses stockimages still agrees to a transfer of the license e.g. for collaboration with 26.2, that they added existing rights stay as they are doesn't change that the initiator still gets extensive rights on the collaborated designs and those designs can be almost identical to the original according to someone, who is well versed in reading legal documents because it is his job.
Is it save to use stockimages? I wouldn't, not with these terms.

[EDIT]
On a positive note, it isn't so clear cut for the initiator anymore.
Though is it a better solution? Adding a little legal uncertainty makes these terms even more troubling afaik.
[/EDIT]
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 6:15:56 PM
Dale M. Boyce wrote:
🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
vivendulies wrote:
Colorwash wrote:
vivendulies wrote:
Dale M. Boyce wrote:
In my humble opinion, I think all of you who are deleting your products and stores are making a HUGE mistake. Do you really think that Zazzle is out to get their designers, the one who made them what they are today in the first place?


BTW: I take offence by panic wagon. This is cool risk assessment with the aid of professionals in the field (aka copyright attorneys).

I believe she wasn't referring to you at all but to those who are deleting their products and closing their stores.


And that includes me, because, I hid a soon as I had tested the collaboration for myself and understood how the collaboration tool works and hoped for a solution as long as I could and now I'm deleting anything that I want to defend in any time of the future so I won't running into trouble in any dispute because of zazzle terms. [EDIT]And others probably won't appreciate to be painted hysterical, what is implied by the term panic wagon.[/EDIT]



I do agree that "panic wagon" feels derogatory and not appreciated by me either.

Trying to warn others that "hey, something isn't right here" is a far cry from "panic wagon"


I was speaking specifically about folks closing their stores before they have all the answers from Z. To me, that is panicking.

I'm not taking issue with questioning the new policies. Heck, I have lots of questions, too.

It certainly was not my intention to offend anyone. I am the most non-confrontational person you'll ever meet and wouldn't hurt someone intentionally for all the tea in china.


I get you. It is easy when emotions are running high to take things the wrong way or to serve them up the wrong way. We all need to cut each other some slack. peace.
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 6:20:36 PM
ArtAttic wrote:
Dale M. Boyce wrote:
It certainly was not my intention to offend anyone. I am the most non-confrontational person you'll ever meet and wouldn't hurt someone intentionally for all the tea in china.


I concur. It's too bad you wanted to try to help some of your fellow designers, Dale. I wish you wouldn't have. You're too nice to now be (for a better word) grumbled at. But tension is high here, that's why I stay quiet. But in this case I want to stand up and would like to scream, but I'll say this nicely.

Dale meant well, and is now made feel bad for it. What a bunch of 'fellow' designers' you all are. 'I feel offended because you said this'... 'I feel offended because you said that'... Yuck, and that is 'our' Zazzle community? Despicable... I hope you ALL feel offended because I said that.

A lot of you are winded up about everything that is going on, and that's understandable. But can we just have a little sense of normalcy here, and treat eachother kindly? Not every fart needs to be taken personally or offensive.


Okay but that is exactly how it felt when I read the post about "panic wagon" I have hidden a lot of my stuff, and I have tried to help warn others about dangerous waters and so I felt targeted by that post. on a normal day my skin is much thicker than that but these are not normal days.

Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 6:26:12 PM
ArtAttic wrote:
Dale M. Boyce wrote:
It certainly was not my intention to offend anyone. I am the most non-confrontational person you'll ever meet and wouldn't hurt someone intentionally for all the tea in china.


I concur. It's too bad you wanted to try to help some of your fellow designers, Dale. I wish you wouldn't have. You're too nice to now be (for a better word) grumbled at. But tension is high here, that's why I stay quiet. But in this case I want to stand up and would like to scream, but I'll say this nicely.

Dale meant well, and is now made feel bad for it. What a bunch of 'fellow' designers' you all are. 'I feel offended because you said this'... 'I feel offended because you said that'... Yuck, and that is 'our' Zazzle community? Despicable... I hope you ALL feel offended because I said that.

A lot of you are winded up about everything that is going on, and that's understandable. But can we just have a little sense of normalcy here, and treat eachother kindly? Not every fart needs to be taken personally or offensive.


I don't agree. Yes, tension is high, but to assume others have less of a mind to think for themselves is offending in its self and it is not on subject either. It is the mindset. Can we please respect, that we read the terms differently and come to different conclusions.

Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 6:26:58 PM
@vivendulies - I'm thinking the initiator should be the primary designer who initiated the design, created it, posted it for sale, and promoted it. Smile
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 6:32:45 PM
northwest4art wrote:
@vivendulies - I'm thinking the initiator should be the primary designer who initiated the design, created it, posted it for sale, and promoted it. Smile


A big amen to that!
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 6:34:47 PM
vivendulies wrote:
ArtAttic wrote:
Dale M. Boyce wrote:
It certainly was not my intention to offend anyone. I am the most non-confrontational person you'll ever meet and wouldn't hurt someone intentionally for all the tea in china.


I concur. It's too bad you wanted to try to help some of your fellow designers, Dale. I wish you wouldn't have. You're too nice to now be (for a better word) grumbled at. But tension is high here, that's why I stay quiet. But in this case I want to stand up and would like to scream, but I'll say this nicely.

Dale meant well, and is now made feel bad for it. What a bunch of 'fellow' designers' you all are. 'I feel offended because you said this'... 'I feel offended because you said that'... Yuck, and that is 'our' Zazzle community? Despicable... I hope you ALL feel offended because I said that.

A lot of you are winded up about everything that is going on, and that's understandable. But can we just have a little sense of normalcy here, and treat eachother kindly? Not every fart needs to be taken personally or offensive.


I don't agree. Yes, tension is high, but to assume others have less of a mind to think for themselves is offending in its self and it is not on subject either. It is the mindset. Can we please respect, that we read the terms differently and come to different conclusions.



You completely missed the point of my post, as I expected you would. But that's fine with me. Carry on.
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 6:52:56 PM
northwest4art wrote:
@vivendulies - I'm thinking the initiator should be the primary designer who initiated the design, created it, posted it for sale, and promoted it. Smile


Why?
Isn't it a great idea that friends across continents can help each other out?
The problem is not the collaboration on existing designs. It is the license transfere in the terms with an appalling lack of differentiation.


OFFTOPIC:

@Artattic. I did get your point. And I read the word panic and implied stupidity way too many times in recent posts. Everybody! Please respect your fellow designer and please change your attitude towards their ability to think for themselves and make decisions for themselves. This is not a kindergarden where you need to hold hands when crossing the street. WE ARE ALL GROWN UPS AND LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS AND INACTIONS REGARDLESS OF WHO SAID WHAT WHEN HOW AND HOW MANY TIMES.

THANK YOU
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 6:57:04 PM
I am one that has hidden my stores. I did it after the collab tool went live and because of tester's results. I need to be able to make no customization with text area templates. I finally figured out how to do it tonight but wow that in itself is unbelievably overwhelming. I so appreciate any affiliates who have been so kind to send customers my way over the years and I'm so sorry my store is hidden atm. Love I am having a hard time deciding if I want to do this much redo work and Nov 22 is coming up fast. I use QC but the templates I did over are not showing up yet and I don't know if they will in time. I have them in groups and thought that would be the fastest way.

I sure hope that James C will give a yay or nay on the no customization button on the edit products page.
Posted: Friday, November 15, 2019 7:15:02 PM
-·-

SECONDARY CONTENT

  • As the others I'm not happy that I pay for secondary content. Who would? But as with any costs I simply up the royalty and have every customer pay for secondary content. Just like we all pay in the supermarket for the loss due to damages and thieves and what else factors in in running the supermarket.

  • I have no problem secondary content with my designs, as long as I can curate the secondary content myself. I have an excellent track record in assessing 3rd party content so far and trust my judgement. I don't trust zazzle to curate secondary content once it is open to everybody and the sheer volume will excel the statistical probability.

    So I won't offer customization as long as this can of worms is looming on the horizon, since I can't take back customization on existing products. It annoys me immensely that I can't without accepting secondary content.
  • Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 2:09:58 AM
    Rebecca@ZingerBug wrote:
    🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
    Rebecca@ZingerBug wrote:
    🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:

    well as far as I know the secondary content is not meant for us to use. and I have no choice in the matter. Unless you know something we haven't heard yet.


    Hmmm... I know nothing other than what's been in the announcements on the forum, but that was the way I read it. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I'll have to go re-read it all.


    respectfully , yes I think you should because you are basing your opinion on false information.


    I dunno. Can't find the post I was thinking of - probably buried somewhere in pages and pages of "feedback." Well anyway, it would be nice to know, because at least one of us is basing our opinions on faulty info! Smile


    You mean this one

    From all that I read about the royalty share, my only conclusion is, that in the MP designer will be an option on the left with secondary content. Whenever a customer chooses to add an element, a text pairing or an image my royalty goes down.

    Repeat customers who used customize may know it is there. New customers won't. Both act on the primary content.
    The following scenarios are equally possible

    1. Customer ignores the secondary content changes what he intended and buys
    2. Customer discovers the secondary content is happy to ad it and buys it
    3. Customer intends to change what he intended to change discovers the secondary content is distracted and after dabbling with the secondary content forgets all about buying the primary content.

    The last scenario has been tested in supermarkets with number of choices and they found that too many choices reduces the likelihood of a sale.

    It is therefor just as likely that we loose sales simply because it is there and it is overwhelming.

    Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 3:26:14 AM
    ArtAttic wrote:
    Dale M. Boyce wrote:
    It certainly was not my intention to offend anyone. I am the most non-confrontational person you'll ever meet and wouldn't hurt someone intentionally for all the tea in china.


    I concur. It's too bad you wanted to try to help some of your fellow designers, Dale. I wish you wouldn't have. You're too nice to now be (for a better word) grumbled at. But tension is high here, that's why I stay quiet. But in this case I want to stand up and would like to scream, but I'll say this nicely.

    Dale meant well, and is now made feel bad for it. What a bunch of 'fellow' designers' you all are. 'I feel offended because you said this'... 'I feel offended because you said that'... Yuck, and that is 'our' Zazzle community? Despicable... I hope you ALL feel offended because I said that.

    A lot of you are winded up about everything that is going on, and that's understandable. But can we just have a little sense of normalcy here, and treat eachother kindly? Not every fart needs to be taken personally or offensive.


    Thank you ArtAttic.
    Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 4:32:30 AM
    RoyK_is_a_She wrote:

    Quote:
    - 6.1.5.2. Collaborative Content based on existing Public Products may not be published on the Site.

    Excuse me, but it can be published elsewhere? Yes, I see 3.1.19, but 6.1.5.2 should support 3.1.19 and not weaken it by stating "on the Site." IMO, anyone interested in publishing a collab isn't going to run back up to another section to see if there is something which defies 6.1.5.2. Since Zazzle doesn't screen pre-publishing and openly admits it (in the agreements), this is a problem.


    Besides:
    Quote:
    3.1.19. upload and/or exploit any other User's Content (including Collaborative Content, as applicable), on the Site or elsewhere, for use by others; or


    English is my second language but does't this put a clear conditional on the "upload"? I'd say it applies to invitees and as far as the initiator is concerned assets on its own.

    Quote:
    6.1.5. The copyright to any new (i.e., non-Public Products) 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, TO THE EXTENT ANY SUCH RIGHT EXISTS, 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.

    Right the assets on its own are untouchables. But it still grants the 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.

    Nothing has changed.
    Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 4:36:00 AM
    vivendulies wrote:
    Rebecca@ZingerBug wrote:
    🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:
    Rebecca@ZingerBug wrote:
    🌼Shelli Fitzpatrick wrote:

    well as far as I know the secondary content is not meant for us to use. and I have no choice in the matter. Unless you know something we haven't heard yet.


    Hmmm... I know nothing other than what's been in the announcements on the forum, but that was the way I read it. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I'll have to go re-read it all.


    respectfully , yes I think you should because you are basing your opinion on false information.


    I dunno. Can't find the post I was thinking of - probably buried somewhere in pages and pages of "feedback." Well anyway, it would be nice to know, because at least one of us is basing our opinions on faulty info! Smile


    You mean this one

    From all that I read about the royalty share, my only conclusion is, that in the MP designer will be an option on the left with secondary content. Whenever a customer chooses to add an element, a text pairing or an image my royalty goes down.

    Repeat customers who used customize may know it is there. New customers won't. Both act on the primary content.
    The following scenarios are equally possible

    1. Customer ignores the secondary content changes what he intended and buys
    2. Customer discovers the secondary content is happy to ad it and buys it
    3. Customer intends to change what he intended to change discovers the secondary content is distracted and after dabbling with the secondary content forgets all about buying the primary content.

    The last scenario has been tested in supermarkets with number of choices and they found that too many choices reduces the likelihood of a sale.

    It is therefor just as likely that we loose sales simply because it is there and it is overwhelming.



    isn't it ironic that they took away most of the 154 styles of shirts on the premise that too much choice is overwhelming and hurts sales, then turn around and offer 1000+ icons, extra fonts and the looming of the elements library?

    #doublestandard



    Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 7:22:40 AM
    vivendulies wrote:
    -·-

    I read this 'if I not log in' so many times; it is baffling.
    According to previous US court ruling you don't have to log in in order to accept those terms. Running a storefront full or emptied out is using the site. Using the site is using the site under those new terms.


    You have to actively close the account. That is informing zazzle of your intent in good time meaning before or at least shortly after.

    Here is the good news however any design you delete terminates the license for this design with zazzle so the design can't be used legally in a collaboration.
    But because zazzle is known for selling without a license, meaning selling designs that have been deleted years after they where deleted and every time a customer opens customize he has a copy in his 'saved design' area that apparently isn't deleted, when we delete. So you have to inform zazzle properly about the designs you deleted. You need to keep a record and make sure zazzle is doing its due diligent by actively removing those copies.

    Anybody who uses stockimages still grants zazzle a general license to offer for download. That they added an intent to the clause doesn't change this fact.
    Anybody who uses stockimages still agrees to a transfer of the license e.g. for collaboration with 26.2, that they added existing rights stay as they are doesn't change that the initiator still gets extensive rights on the collaborated designs and those designs can be almost identical to the original according to someone, who is well versed in reading legal documents because it is his job.
    Is it save to use stockimages? I wouldn't, not with these terms.

    [EDIT]
    On a positive note, it isn't so clear cut for the initiator anymore.
    Though is it a better solution? Adding a little legal uncertainty makes these terms even more troubling afaik.
    [/EDIT]


    Ok. So..with all this talk about the solution of remaking products but with Customization being turned off...
    Will this tedious link breaking solution allow me to use the images I purchased from clip art vendors with a license without breaking their licenses? Or..will Zazzle still..after the 22nd, own the copyright to my designs made from purchased elements/art.
    Basically I get x number of uses and no giving away..etc. etc etc.
    I want to be able to sleep nights knowing that I am honoring the work and licenses of the artists whose work I purchased (don't throw them or myself under the bus)
    Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 7:46:24 AM
    AnnaRosaEnergyArtist wrote:
    vivendulies wrote:
    -·-

    I read this 'if I not log in' so many times; it is baffling.
    According to previous US court ruling you don't have to log in in order to accept those terms. Running a storefront full or emptied out is using the site. Using the site is using the site under those new terms.


    You have to actively close the account. That is informing zazzle of your intent in good time meaning before or at least shortly after.

    Here is the good news however any design you delete terminates the license for this design with zazzle so the design can't be used legally in a collaboration.
    But because zazzle is known for selling without a license, meaning selling designs that have been deleted years after they where deleted and every time a customer opens customize he has a copy in his 'saved design' area that apparently isn't deleted, when we delete. So you have to inform zazzle properly about the designs you deleted. You need to keep a record and make sure zazzle is doing its due diligent by actively removing those copies.

    Anybody who uses stockimages still grants zazzle a general license to offer for download. That they added an intent to the clause doesn't change this fact.
    Anybody who uses stockimages still agrees to a transfer of the license e.g. for collaboration with 26.2, that they added existing rights stay as they are doesn't change that the initiator still gets extensive rights on the collaborated designs and those designs can be almost identical to the original according to someone, who is well versed in reading legal documents because it is his job.
    Is it save to use stockimages? I wouldn't, not with these terms.

    [EDIT]
    On a positive note, it isn't so clear cut for the initiator anymore.
    Though is it a better solution? Adding a little legal uncertainty makes these terms even more troubling afaik.
    [/EDIT]


    Ok. So..with all this talk about the solution of remaking products but with Customization being turned off...
    Will this tedious link breaking solution allow me to use the images I purchased from clip art vendors with a license without breaking their licenses? Or..will Zazzle still..after the 22nd, own the copyright to my designs made from purchased elements/art.
    Basically I get x number of uses and no giving away..etc. etc etc.
    I want to be able to sleep nights knowing that I am honoring the work and licenses of the artists whose work I purchased (don't throw them or myself under the bus)


    Zazzle will never own your copyrights, but the terms state that the person who starts a collaboration will have exclusive rights to exploit the copyrights of the "in progress" and "final results" of said collaboration.

    It gives no guidelines for how much change has to occur to the original design and the only additional protection they supposedly added was that it can't be downloaded or posted for sale on Zazzle.

    but the rights in the terms state " NONEXCLUSIVE, WORLDWIDE, SUBLICENSABLE AND TRANSFERABLE RIGHT AND LICENSE TO USE, COPY, REPRODUCE, PREPARE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF, MODIFY, PUBLICLY DISPLAY, PERFORM AND DISTRIBUTE ELEMENTS AS CONTAINED IN THE COLLABORATIVE CONTENT ON THE SITE IN PERPETUITY.

    so what is to stop them exercising these rights somewhere else?

    That is the problem with granting them these rights. But these rights are not granted to Zazzle. Our license agreement with Zazzle is not perpetual.

    also for those who use 3rd party licenses the words sublicensable and transferable are problematic.

    I quoted the current terms... these are in effect now.




    Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 7:56:43 AM
    vivendulies wrote:
    RoyK_is_a_She wrote:

    Quote:
    - 6.1.5.2. Collaborative Content based on existing Public Products may not be published on the Site.

    Excuse me, but it can be published elsewhere? Yes, I see 3.1.19, but 6.1.5.2 should support 3.1.19 and not weaken it by stating "on the Site." IMO, anyone interested in publishing a collab isn't going to run back up to another section to see if there is something which defies 6.1.5.2. Since Zazzle doesn't screen pre-publishing and openly admits it (in the agreements), this is a problem.


    Besides:
    Quote:
    3.1.19. upload and/or exploit any other User's Content (including Collaborative Content, as applicable), on the Site or elsewhere, for use by others; or


    English is my second language but does't this put a clear conditional on the "upload"? I'd say it applies to invitees and as far as the initiator is concerned assets on its own.

    Quote:
    6.1.5. The copyright to any new (i.e., non-Public Products) 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, TO THE EXTENT ANY SUCH RIGHT EXISTS, 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.

    Right the assets on its own are untouchables. But it still grants the 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.

    Nothing has changed.

    So after the 22nd then I need to delete..rather than keep hidden...
    all my products. I will not close the store as I am waiting for my sales to clear and they will owe me zero money.
    However...as we know, deleted items have been sold in the past. So my accepting any payment under those circumstances again sounds like a breach of clip art licenses.
    Users browsing this topic
    Guest


    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