This might become a problem for Patreon content creators

[Noct80]

Terms of Use
Effective March 20, 2023

You must be registered to see the links

Section > Your creations

"By making creations available on Patreon or otherwise posting on Patreon, you grant us a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, sublicensable, worldwide license covering your creation or what you post in all formats and channels now known or later developed anywhere in the world to use, copy, reproduce, store, translate, transmit, distribute, perform, prepare derivative works, publicly display, and display in connection with any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with it. If your creations contain any personal data, you also recognize Patreon’s “legitimate interest” in it in accordance with the scope of this license."

That's about the same language WotC/Hasbro tried to pull with the DnD OGL.... Was there some sort of secret evil CEO meeting or whatever?

 

[ancienregimele]

Patreon are saying to creators that they have ownership of what is posted. There may be creators who will leave as a result of this but I'm thinking most will stay & see how it works in practice. Possibly if Patreon try to make money from someone's creation without an agreed "cut", or an inadequate one, it could stir the situation, which is suggested by the no-royalty clause. It sounds as though this could happen from the wording which seeks to cover Patreon from being sued through a number of causes.

Bearing in mind what happened to the original creators & writers of Superman, it seems there's a need to be wary. Still what users sign up to is all there in the small print.

 

[Meaning Less]

This was already part of their terms before....

They require most of those in order to distribute content to donors without being sued by content creators.

 

[carrotpop3]

This was already part of their terms before....

They require most of those in order to distribute content to donors without being sued by content creators.

You must be registered to see the links

Pretty much exactly what that dude said. Seems pretty fair, stops idiots from trying to sue them.

 

[Icarus Media]

Ah legalese.

A license does not nor cannot in any legal jurisdiction I know of transfer ownership of assets, trademarks, creations or the intellectual property rights within them, all this essentially means is that any creation you fund via patreon, or anything you post, you give permission forever that you cannot take back that they can 'use, copy, reproduce, store, translate, transmit, distribute, perform, prepare derivative works, publicly display, and display in connection with any name, username, voice, or likeness provided in connection with it'

Source: the letters LLB and LLM after my name irl.

 

[Atemsiel]

To be honest, as weird as this is, I can't see patreon really wanting to use anything to do with porn games. As long as it doesn't get us kicked off the platform, in practice this most likely won't make a difference. If patreon was a dedicated porn game distribution service, I can imagine more people would be upset about it. In this space at least.

 

[anne O'nymous]

That's about the same language WotC/Hasbro tried to pull with the DnD OGL.... Was there some sort of secret evil CEO meeting or whatever?

There's just a totally not secret thing called "Law", that make sites hosting content, but not only, put this kind of conditions in their Terms of Service (or similar) in order to cover their ass when they use your creation for their internal promotion and advertisement. It's more than surely in Patreon's ToS since the creation of the site, and was probably already phrased as this at this time.

Be noted that you are the third, to my knowledge, to starts a thread pointing this "issue" with Patreon's ToS during the last years, and all received the same kind of answer: When you don't know, don't claim, ask.

 

[Noct80]

Be noted that you are the third, to my knowledge, to starts a thread pointing this "issue" with Patreon's ToS during the last years, and all received the same kind of answer: When you don't know, don't claim, ask.

The questionmark at the end, indicates that there was a question, though (j/k). Satire/sarcasm is however, apparently at least for me, not as easy to convey in written words. I do apologize for that.

In fact (to set things straight), Patreon (as opposed to what WotC did) clearly and explicitly states their purpose and the extend/reasoning for this part in their terms:

From their upcoming terms:
"For clarity, you keep full ownership over your creations and what you post on Patreon; we are not buying your intellectual property rights or leasing them from you for our gain. We will never try to steal your creations, use them in an exploitative way, or seek to profit off of them by any means other than facilitating memberships and offerings you’ve configured on Patreon."

I mainly found the wording on the WotC/Hasbro-side interesting. As if Hasbro used the cheapest law intern they could find to make that OGL document and that this person just copy-pasted some stuff he found online.
Insert "Ten minutes later"-meme: "That'll do just fine. I used long and difficult words, right? They won't even notice".

 

[anne O'nymous]

The questionmark at the end, indicates that there was a question, though (j/k).

And a question ask for an answer, right ?


I'll not talk about the OGL, or more precisely I'll surely not talk about it until they effectively release the new version, if there's a new version. Leaks are something marvelous that many companies use deliberately to have an overview of the public reaction, while still having the possibility to say that it was just a draft that was already rejected when it was leaked.