> In plain English that means: we own everything you post.
No it doesn’t. It means you’re giving them license to use it in whatever way they see fit. You need to give them some kind of license over the content since they are hosting it for you.
They need to store it. They need to copy it. They may need to modify it, either for moderation purposes or because it becomes a piece of another post via quoting / replying. They arguably even need to sublicense others to use and copy it for the same.
Every service that stores user content has an identical clause. They are always overly broad and catch-all inclusive of all intellectual rights to avoid missing something.
There’s nothing new here. Just a clickbait site that doesn’t understand copyright and can’t do basic fact checking.
I agree. The comparison with Facebook’s TOS just shows that Facebook has put more time into their TOS to obtain the same legal rights without sounding as scary.
That said, the TOS for social media platforms should be explicit and easy to understand with regards to the limits of the platform’s rights and the context under which the content is licensed. This story will probably prompt Bluesky to do exactly that, so not a bad thing overall.
> They need to store it. They need to copy it. They may need to modify it, either for moderation purposes or because it becomes a piece of another post via quoting / replying. They arguably even need to sublicense others to use and copy it for the same.
One expects language that specifically states "non-exclusive non-transferable". For example, a mere "non-exclusive" license permits Bluesky to sell your content to OpenAI to train models.
"because it becomes a piece of another post via quoting / replying. They arguably even need to sublicense others to use and copy it for the same."
IANAL, AYAL? Let's hear some legal opinion here. It seems to me my replying to a comment and quoting it on a platform that has a non-exclusive license from original author for precisely that purpose would be "fair use".
"Bluesky grants to you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license, with no right to sublicense, to download, view, copy, display and print the Content solely in connection with your permitted use of the Services and solely for your personal and non-commercial purposes. Other than the right to use the Services as explicitly described in these Terms for your personal, limited use, no other rights are granted to you under these Terms."
What they want :
"By making any User Content available through the Services, you hereby grant to Bluesky and its subsidiaries, affiliates, licensee, successors, and assigns (the “Bluesky Parties”) an irrevocable, non-exclusive, perpetual, transferable, worldwide, royalty-free license, with the right to sublicense (through multiple tiers of sub-licensing), to use, copy, modify, adapt, crop, edit, creative derivative works, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform and otherwise exploit in any media now known or hereafter devised, your User Content, in whole or in part,"
Irrevocable, Perpetual. "Arguably", such grant should cease once you stop using Bluesky. For example, if you delete your account, there is no more you and nothing of yours to reply to. Why "perpetual"? Why "irrevocable"?
Sub-licensing. "with the right to sublicense (through multiple tiers of sub-licensing)". Strange. Just above, you the user of Blueky get "a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license, with no right to sublicense".
I believe they want your content for training models, "Arguably" "Services".
A non-exclusive right and license means you can still grant similar rights to other parties, and you are not restricted from using the content yourself or licensing it to others.
> If you're on Twitter, you've probably seen people flocking to Bluesky, a social platform hailed as a promising alternative to the now-ailing bird app.
No it doesn’t. It means you’re giving them license to use it in whatever way they see fit. You need to give them some kind of license over the content since they are hosting it for you.
They need to store it. They need to copy it. They may need to modify it, either for moderation purposes or because it becomes a piece of another post via quoting / replying. They arguably even need to sublicense others to use and copy it for the same.
Every service that stores user content has an identical clause. They are always overly broad and catch-all inclusive of all intellectual rights to avoid missing something.
There’s nothing new here. Just a clickbait site that doesn’t understand copyright and can’t do basic fact checking.