Post-Project Stress Syndrome, and “Who Really Owns Your Words?”
By Tom Chandler on Sep 3, 2008 in Business of Freelancing, Copywriting
With my big, deadline-driven Web project launched and humming (for the time being), it’s time to get out of town for my anniversary.
That’s what writers do; we finish the book/Web site/project, then go somewhere warm to shake off the Post-Project Traumatic Stress Syndrome - preferably with an appropriately literary alcohol (the Copywriting Maven says “mojitos” are the cure, and this time, I may test her theory).
Still, I’m going to leave my readers with some legal fun (really). Read on: you’ll find this interesting.
Who Owns Your Work Now?
You can run from big projects, but you can’t run from the law, which is why I sat up a little when Valleywag listed the five most laughable Terms of Service Agreements in high tech.
For example, download Google’s new Chrome browswer, and you agree that:
…any “content” you “submit, post or display” using the service — whether you own its copyright or not — gives Google a “perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute” it? Google’s ambitions for Chrome are even larger than we thought; by the letter of this license, Google will own all information that flows through its browser. But Chrome’s terms of service are just the latest in a long line of ludicrous legalese.
Facebook’s says it owns the rights to the photographs you upload to the service.
Sure, it’s ludicrous, but then, it’s also in keeping with the anti-intellectual property ethos of Web 2.0, where content creators give up their right to content as fast as they create it, and only those providing technology are allowed to cash in.
In this case, Google’s obviously trying head off the legal challenges that suggest their ad netowrk illegally profits from the work of others.
As a copywriter, it’s easy to think none of this will affect you, but in some not-so-distant future, some of these agreements could come back to bite writers and other creatives on our flat butts.
Imagine a professional photographer who innocently uploads a couple images to his Facebook page, then finds them starting back at him in a Facebook ad.
Legal? Maybe.
UPDATE: Now Google says they don’t want the rights to your work, and are removing that passage from the Chrome license.
Non-Disclosure Agreements
Web Worker Daily also posted a short interview with a legal expert about Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) - a legal form copywriters are often asked to sign.
I’ve signed quite a few over the years (mostly high-tech clients), and most protected my rights as much as the client’s.
Still, I was once handed a “standard” NDA across a desk, and though I came within a whisker of not reading it, I’m glad I did.
On page six, I discovered a non-compete clause.
I muttered a “Huh?” (Not my best moment, verbally speaking.)
A little reading, and I realized this little gem would have prevented my working for anyone else in the client’s markets (all of them) for several years.
“Houston,” I said, “we have a problem.” (This was much better than “Huh.”)
While I avoid direct conflicts of interest, I’m also clear that I’m being paid for my copy and expertise - not the exclusive rights to “own” me in a particular field.
It became a sticking point - until I explained to my contact exactly what I was signing away.
We excised the offending passage from the NDA (both initialed the change), and went on with the project.
The moral? Don’t sign an NDA without reading it - even a “standard” form.
Keep drinking mojitos writing, Tom Chandler.
Powered by ScribeFire.




I actually read the facebook photos TOS and then stopped posting pictures on facebook. I really think there should also be a way to remove pictures of me that other people upload. The fact is, most of the pictures that are on there of me, the individual does not have my permission to publish them (no model release) and they were taken in a private setting.
I think google would have a hard time enforcing their chrome TOS if push came to shove.
Sunny Daydreame | Sep 3, 2008 | Reply
Hey Tom,
Your first point reminded me of the Virgin Mobile ad that used a picture it took from Flickr. As part of the Creative Content (CC) agreement, it attributed the photographer with a URL in the bottom left of the ad.
However, it did not secure a model release. The 16-year old girl in the photo sued for using the photo and for Virgin using derogatory remarks. Seemingly it was the repeated use of the word “virgin” in the image that caused her embarrassment with her friends.
Just goes to show, even when you own the content on the web, you don’t own the content on the web…
Here’s the offending poster:
http://flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/
~Graham
Graham Strong | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Hello Tom,
I write supplements for college textbooks. Three types of contract clauses in that field can be problematic.
1. Non-Disclosure Clause. I usually don’t have a problem with this since it asks me not to divulge the nature of the project to competitors until the project is complete.
2. Non-Compete Clause. Usually requires that I not do similar work for another publisher for 1-3 years. I always have this stricken, although it doesn’t often appear.
3. Update Clause. This asks me to update the work indefinitely. Occasionally appears. I have it removed, or I get clarification. It often means that I agree to negotiate the update with them, and I get compensated for the update. However, once one editor didn’t see it that way and it caused a temporary rift between us.
Cheers,
John Soares
John Soares | Sep 4, 2008 | Reply
Sunny: I don’t believe a model release is needed to simply post a picture online. It’s only required when your likeness is used for a commercial purpose.
Graham: I remember hearing a little bit about the Flick’r case, but thanks to the pointer to the thread. The commercial (ad agency) use of images from Flick’r - without even notification to the photographers - is a good example of the dangers of the digital era for creatives, and a good reminder to use the Creative Commons license very judiciously.
John: Nice to know I’m not the only who occasionally finds odd (and restrictive) clauses in his NDAs. Thanks for sharing your experiences.
Tom Chandler | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
Hi Tom,
Thanks for this post. Like Sunny my initial reaction is to go straight to my facebook account and take down all my pictures :o)
I’ll definitely pass this onto my photographer friends who make ample use of Flickr.
Take care,
Rebecca
PS. You’re a funny guy :o)
Rebecca | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
Rebecca: Make sure your photog buddies use the All Rights Reserved (ARR) license wherever possible. That doesn’t protect them from thieves, but at least no agency will pull their stuff down and use it without compensation.
And thank you.
Tom Chandler | Sep 6, 2008 | Reply