DSP Fanart Copyright Disclaimer -

[James Smith]

Will this disclaimer irrevocably re-assign copyright to me as the webmaster? "Please note that by posting up ANY artwork in this thread, you are completely rescinding the legal rights of said artwork and therefore NO copyright claims nor trademark claims can be made by your person moving forward for said art. Posting artwork in this thread gives NAME sole permission to use this artwork for ANY purposes moving forward. If you do not agree, please do not post anything in this thread."

Answer 1:

Generally, under 17 U.S.C. 204(a):

"(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent."

You should discuss with an intellectual property attorney in a private consultation.

Answer 2:

It sounds pretty absolute. If it meets the requirements for a contract in the applicable jurisdiction it may be enforceable. There might be an argument it goes so far as to be unenforceable but that's a tough position to prove.

Answer 3:

The blurb you've written is worse than useless because it uses legal terminology ("rescinding") improperly, is internally inconsistent (includes both assignment and license language), does not require an overt act to opt into the agreement, does not expressly identify the consideration exchanged for the uploader's grant of rights (whatever they are), and, at the end of the day, it simply sounds amateurish. I think it very, very unlikely a court would interpret the blurb to be a copyright assignment or a license or would enforce it in any way. Posting that blurb would complicate your relationship with your website visitors rather than clarify it.

If you really want people to sell you their copyright in their art (an assignment) in exchange for you displaying their art on your website then you need to discuss how to do so lawfully -- and persuasively -- with your own Washington-licensed intellectual property attorney. Good luck.

Answer 4:

You received some good advice here. I think you should have proper terms drafted for your platform especially if you seek to exploit the copyright protected work of others. While this is not written well, it may still provide be considered clear enough to express the intent of the parties so long as you can show that the user/poster has agreed to these terms affirmatively.

Before you go further, I suggest that you consult with a lawyer in private and discuss your objectives in more detail. You can start by calling around to several for a free phone consultation, get some insights then pick the best fit to work with.

Best regards,
Frank
Natoli-Legal, LLC

Answer 5:

I completely agree with Mr. Ballard. I add this: The legalese doesn't do anything. People don't say, "Gee, honey, those green beans are great! Please pass said green beans." So why write such drivel? Someone who doesn't know better may think that that the legalese sounds impressive and binding, but it is the other parts that have legal effect, if at all. So put what you are trying to say into plain English, and get a knowledgeable intellectual property lawyer who can help you write terms of the website that hopefully you can make stick.

 

[Destro1986]

lmao Youtube doesn't ask for proof anyway.

 

[DarkSoulsPhil]

is this fan art copyright strikes 2.0?

I always thought that his disclaimer was weak legally, but i dont know washington law

 

[Destro1986]

is this fan art copyright strikes 2.0?

I always thought that his disclaimer was weak legally, but i dont know washington law

TOS/Disclaimers have pretty universally been ruled legally useless unless there's an active "Opt-In" that can count as a signature. That's why they all make you check that box at the end now; they didn't used to do that back in the day.

 

[Andrew Blaze]

His trademark may be expired btw

 

[LyteSydeByll]

Did he get more copyright strikes?

EDIT: Thanks, I was confused

 

[DarkSoulsPhil]

Did he get more copyright strikes?

Not that I am aware of.

I asked if this is the fan art situation all over again because the thought about how protected he is legally since he made that change has been rattling around my head for a while now. All it takes is one person submitting art, claiming it once its used and tearing him a new one (again).

Fun fact, if he paid $1 per piece of artwork, he would (probably) be safe from the strikes. Since he would have bought it and can attach in that transaction, the right to use it for his streams, site, twitter etc.

 

[actually]

Did he get more copyright strikes?

It's the disclaimer he put on his artwork thread after that Jackie Chin dude did the copyright strikes on all his prestream videos that used his art. @SoapQueen1 posted it on Avvo (a legal advice site where lawyers can answer questions in a general form) and those are the responses. In short, it's almost certainly not binding and the language used is apparently wrong and carries no actual legal meaning.