Topic: MySpace Alters Agreements Following Bragg Protest
- Jul 2, 2006 03:23am by NRG - livin the art that is life !
www.64111clinic.com fam
www.nrginmotion.com massage
www.myspace.com/nrginmotion world community Location: havenhouse KCK/ 64111 Clinic 4 Life
MySpace Alters Agreements Following Bragg Protest
MySpace has recently altered its terms of agreement with artists, a move
that follows a protest by Billy Bragg. The alterations, made rather quickly,
clearly revert the ownership of intellectual property to uploading artists.
"MySpace.com does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post to the MySpace Services,"the amended language now states.
Following the alterations, Bragg expressed his satisfaction. "I am very
pleased to see that MySpace have changed their terms of agreement from a declaration of their rights into a declaration of our rights as artists,
making it clear that, as creators, we retain ownership of our material," the
artist noted. Earlier this month, Bragg removed his content, pointing to
unfavorable language that may have given MySpace ownership rights.
MySpace denied any such ambitions, and backed its response with the latest changes.
www.rockrap.com
- Jul 2, 2006 04:37am by Distorted_Mastermind - I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Adam Savage Location: Olathe, KS
I'm pretty sure they just said they have the right to use uploaded material which is pretty common practice for large websites like that. Myspace is now owned by Fox or some other large network, the other site I post music on is owned by Sony now. Would it really be a bad thing for me if Sony or Fox (even though it might not be Fox it works as a name for now) used my music without paying? My take on that is no. It would be real cheap advertisment and probably generate more listeners. That's a question everyone that uploads any form of media to sites like that should be asking themselves though.
- Jul 2, 2006 09:45pm by Lucidialect
My personal sentiment would be that if a corporate run entity such as mypsace were to want to use my art for something, and not pay for it, that's probably fine as long as I know up front that whatever I upload is fair game for them to use. Also though, I think notice should be sent to the artist of what their art has been used for, where they can find it, and proper credit should be given to the artist as well wherever it is used. Under these circumstances it would be beneficial.
The only catch is if as an artist you post work you did for somebody else, to where you have the right to post it, but they own the actual rights to the piece. Ownership is tricky.
- Jul 2, 2006 10:39pm by phism
i say don't post any music and don't click any ads.
myspace and youtube and such are probably doing wonders for the hard drive and server market. RAID and shit.
- Jul 3, 2006 06:42pm by Adru
who cares
myspace will continue to be good for musicians and artists
bottom line
maybe ruport murdoch isnt evil afterall
think?
