[In Omnibus]

Originally Posted by Max Taxable

THAT is quite interesting. Was this a US court? Would have been nice of them to post a link to the actual rulings, but I understand why they wouldn't want to do that.

Interesting also that the court seemed to rule that the ToS is more important than some might think.

--------------- Added [DATE]1350852994[/DATE] at [TIME]1350852994[/TIME] ---------------

Yes, it contradicts what you said, that even if it is spelled out in the ToS who owns what, the person posting the material owns it. Clearly that isn't the case.

If it is spelled out clearly in the ToS that the site owns the content, then the site owns the content and the person posting it has no recourse.

I knew there was a reason I have had that in my ToS for these 11 years.

Selective reading?

Jason said: ↑

The copyright argument doesn't necessarily hold weight in the U.S. (for those based here), where law requires a conveyance to transfer copyright if it's not work-for-hire. No click-through or site ToS will transfer copyright ownership in the U.S. (I doubt it would work for any property, which copyright is). What you really want is a non-exclusive license to use the content.