When you submit content to a website, who owns that content? Different sites claim different rights when you post a message, submit a photo, contribute a video, etc. The BBC’s terms and conditions, for example, state:
Where you are invited to submit any contribution to bbc.co.uk (including any text, photographs, graphics, video or audio) you agree, by submitting your contribution, to grant the BBC a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licenseable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, play, make available to the public, and exercise all copyright and publicity rights with respect to your contribution worldwide and/or to incorporate your contribution in other works in any media now known or later developed for the full term of any rights that may exist in your contribution, and in accordance with privacy restrictions set out in the BBC’s Privacy Policy.
Unlike many websites, the BBC doesn’t actually claim ownership over your original contributions, only a right to use the content if you submit it.
OhMyNews has a good article discussing the different claims over the content you submit to various websites and online services (link credit: CitizenJournalist.net).
It’s been a few months since I completed a course on UK contract law (the basics), but it seems to me that a simple statement asserting rights over content that’s been submitted by users isn’t actually a binding contract. A contract must, in order to be binding, contain:
- an offer (an expression of willingness to enter into and be bound by the terms of a contract)
- an acceptance of those exact terms ("mirror image")
- an intention to create legally binding relations
- consideration (each party of the contract must lose something and gain something)
But where is consideration in the terms and conditions on websites encouraging users to submit contributions? What does the website lose in order to benefit from the contribution? What does the user gain? If there is a dispute, how does this position help or harm user contributors? I’m keen to hear the views of some media law experts out there…
(Please Note: This post expresses the personal views of an online community professional who is taking a law course and is not intended to take the place of advice from a qualified legal professional. Acting on this information without first contacting a solicitor would be fool-hardy.)
I’m no media law expert, but wouldn’t the associated costs in hosting the user content be the service provider’s consideration?
mobile phone with free gift
Did you know you can get a valuable free gift with your next contract moble phone… such as Wii, HDTV,top spec Laptops, Playstation, Tom Tom and much more? And its all from a name you can trust… Tesco! YOu’d be nuts to go direct to network with this…