Started as a blog post on Scott Kelby's site about Mpix Pro, new service. Someone posted the terms of usage that seems to me, utterly inappropriate for pro's. What do you folks think?

http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2009/archives/5662#comments



I also looked at the terms on a site I've used in the past, Pictopia, they seem to go out of their way to say the opposite:

Insane.

I read it three times trying to figure out how I was mis-reading it ... but I don't think you and I are ...

Seems to say: "Your stuff is now also my stuff ... Worldwide, irrevocable, sub licensable and royalty free." Insane.

Further, the expert reply on the blog that really got me going was that of Jack Reznicki who knows a thing or two about these issues (he as past president of PPA and has produced a series of copyright video's and articles for NAPP).



My intent isn't to necessarily pick on this one lab unless they are the rare example in their industry. Pictopia seems to be saying the opposite. What's interesting is apparently how few end users were aware of this issue. Another alarming problem for the little guy (photographers).

FWIW, I don't think it's an issue of "professionals" vs. not; even "non-professional" services don't make such rights grabs. For two examples, the Flickr terms of service say:

"Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Yahoo! Services. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable ... With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services."

And the Kodak Gallery terms of service? say:

"Kodak Imaging Network does not claim ownership rights in any image contained in your account. In order to enable us to display your images through the Service (for example, in slideshows and on sample merchandise) and fulfill any orders for you or others who have access to your images, you grant to Kodak Imaging Network a non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, copy, distribute and display those images."

I totally agree! That its up on a supposedly "pro" centric lab site makes this that much more egregious. FWIW, I went to a few other "consumer" lab sites and have yet to find anything as blatant as the MPIX site.
This is from a site I've never used or heard of until I ran across a web ad on another photo site:



Seems acceptable, the language in terms of what happens to printed material going to recycle seems like reasonable protection for this company.

While it certainly sounds like a rights grab, I think what's behind is that their lawyers wrote the text with the thought "let's grab all the rights we can get just to cover our asses in case somebody sues." I highly doubt they have any plans to start a stock agency with Mpix-uploaded pics - although the language certainly sounds like they would have the prerogative. I believe the underlying reason is so they can use uploaded photos for marketing purposes.

For example, the pro lab I use here in Holland has hundreds of mostly uncredited photos on their walls in areas accessible to customers. I'm positive they haven't asked for permission, which is unnecessary as there's a gentleman's agreement not to do anything untoward with the photos. In a more litigious society such legalese might be necessary just to ensure Mpix can show the quality of their product.

In the end, there's only one group of people here who wins: lawyers.

I'm not concerned with their intent, I'm concerned with the rights granted which is unacceptable.


Actually no, if enough of the customers and/or the NAPP organization puts enough pressure on them to fix this language, we win.


Unless you've got no other options in Labs, I know I would never use them again.

I don't give the "benefit of the doubt" in such matters - to do so with contracts and licenses is unwise in my experience.

I'm not a lawyer, but I deal with licenses and contracts all the time - and their lawyers could have easily accomplished protecting their client's position without surreptitiously assuming effective and permanent ownership of their customers' property - particularly those whose living is based on the ownership and control of that property.

To call an outfit like this a "service" seems a corruption of the language. Are there actually people out there stupid enough to use a "service" like this?

Are you by any chance referring to the same NAPP who has "sponsored by Mpix" at the beginning of every single episode of Photoshop User TV podcast?

I'm not joking, it is NAPP themselves who has Mpix as their main sponsor.



Hence my comment referring to a more litigious society - the lab I use is used by numerous local pros and they have production and behind-the-scenes shots from well-known TV series as well as commercial photos on their walls, but nobody seems to be offended, let alone thinking about suing.

As for Mpix, I wouldn't use their service, either, after reading that bit of legalese. I'm actually quite surprised about that, since there's a very good and thorough (American) copyright guide video on Kelbytraining, and the above NAPP comment from digitaldog.

The very same.

I should have added that the term, "service" has a meaning in animal husbandry that accurately describes the relationship between this outfit and its customer.

I've been procrastinating for years about joining NAPP. Now I've got an excuse to wait some more. But if those of you who are members want to start a petition to get them to pressure Mpix into changing their rotten "license", I'll be happy to join just so I can sign the petition.

Thank you, Andrew, for bringing this situation to our attention.

Remeber the furor when facebook tried the same thing, they backed down fast enough but then they had a far bigger userbase complaning.

Does have to be said that those conditions are mind boggling.

Posted up threads here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/797482/0#7348698

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.p...0298#post120298

I think the more that this is spread around the sooner it will be resolved.

It actually appears the NAPP management is sensitive to this issue and will have discussions with the lab about this issue. I hope this is the net result. I find NAPP membership valuable but its stock in my book would skyrocket IF they can affect this change. After all, an association (of photographers or Photoshop users) should attempt to provide positive benefits for its members and even better, non members. Again, should NAPP be influential in fixing the TOC, they deserve a great deal of kudos!

Thank you to everyone for your help in bringing this error to our attention.

The terms and conditions mentioned were copied from our Miller's Professional Imaging website and were written for our web hosting application only. These terms should not have been included on the Mpix.com or MpixPro.com websites and have been removed.

Again, thank you for bringing this to our attention and for understanding our regret in this error.

OK so in addition to being upset by the TOS that was copied to this new site, we should also be upset at the TOS on Millers site as well?

That this language has been removed, at least on MPIX is excellent news and one would hope Millers would follow suite. But you are to be applauded for recognizing this issue and taking such swift action!

Indeed. They made a mistake, but it was identified and corrected. The sound of a company that takes its customers seriously.

Mike.

That's good news. Now I can join NAPP in good conscience, and continue my membership in the Digital Dog Fan Club!

Thanks for being so quick to understand, guys. The Miller's TOS refers ONLY to web hosting services.

So if I use Millers as a web host, I relinquish my copyright? I don't understand why.

You do not relinquish your copyright at any time. The Miller's TOS for Web Hosting only describes web hosting in legal terminology. We are in the process of re-writing this to make it more plainly worded.

Are you referring to this page (http://www.millerslab.com/files/policy/termsofuse.htm)?:

This is not the first time a company doesn't understand or even read their own legalese they require their customers to digitally sign. It happened to Google and Facebook as well.

*sigh*

That's how lawyers get rich: writing stuff that even their clients can't understand.

I just went to the Miller's Professional Imaging website to see what they have to say. Here is paragraph 3 from their Terms of service:



This is pretty much the opposite of what Mpix was claiming. I wonder where they got their version from? 

I also glommed the Mpix site, and if the stuff Andrew quoted was there once, I certainly can't find it now.

It should be gone as of about 11am mountain time (more or less).

I get sick of these rights grabs everywhere we look nowadays and it's an issue for professionals and amateurs alike. Obviously I wouldn't touch a lab like that with a 9 foot barge pole but I really feel it's time for the various authorities such as the US legislature and the European Union to make conditions like these illegal. I know that Pro-Imaging are fighting a campaign against such practices in competitions but I can't help but feeling that some of the bigger national organisations should also be doing more. We always think that politicians don't care about photographers and perhaps we are right in general, however we also have votes and it's quite clear here that many large companies are involved in some pretty sharp practices.