Monday, March 02, 2009

World Blog Archive

Hey, I don't know if other bloggers out there are getting invites to join World Blog Archive, but I have.

I've been considering them and looking into syndicating my content there. In fact, I decided to list 'Style Bard' there, and as I was about to list 'Style Bard Shoes' with them as well, I decided to double-check the fine print. I was mostly concerned about duplicate content and non-compete, etc. I didn't want to hurt my SEO standings or impede on my agreement with Glam Network. Normally, an aggregate is going to know that to keep bloggers sending content their way, they'll have to provide for this. But, you know, I'm wary and I wanted to be sure.

Here's some of the terminology I encountered that made me more suspicious:

However, by posting your Content through the Service you automatically grant WorldBlogArchive a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive worldwide license to (i) use, publish, translate, adapt, distribute, perform, and display the Content alone or as part of other works in any form, media, or technology whether now known or later developed, and to (ii) freely and fully sublicense such rights through single or multiple tiers of sublicensees.

I have signed many a contract in the past three years of blogging, and this is above and beyond the agreements I'm used to signing. It's just too broad for my liking. There should be more explicit cancellation wording, I feel, and more information about how and how not they are allowed to use your blog content. It should be MORE fine print than this, actually. I know that sounds strange, but I actually like parsing the fine print when it's about rights *I* get. However, when a content aggregate wants non-defined, unremunerative, perpetual, irrevocable use of my blog's content because I said okay to link to me, I have to say no way. So here's the removal letter I wrote:

Hey, I was on board to have content from both of my blogs displayed here, but I'm not okay with perpetual and irrevocable use of my materials. This not only seems legally grandiose for WBA to assume, but it sounds like it encroaches on almost any and all opportunities to further syndicate or publish materials. In fact, I'm not sure if it would compete with small-print agreements on most networking/publishing sites (such as the ones I am a part of because they do not request the rights to my materials now and forever, no matter what). It's kind of the "times infinity" of legalese. If the terms are adapted in a more explicit and blogger-respectful way, I'd love to send my content and recommend the service to blogger friends. I work hard on my blog, and I want to keep my prospects a little more open than that, perpetually and irrevocably. Thanks for listening, SB

They're just kicking off, so I hope they're listening to feedback from contributors and they'll get in a bit more shape than this blanket-use nonsense. If anyone's making a dime off of my little pet projects, it'd better be me, mmkay?


Greg Davis said...

You bet I'm listening to feedback :)

I have since made changes to the terms based on your feedback...the language is much more blogger friendly.

I hope you enjoy the site. I'm truly trying to make it a unique service in the favor of bloggers with features you all want.


Greg Davis

Anonymous said...

i`m your permanent reader now

Anonymous said...

It is useful to try everything in practice anyway and I like that here it's always possible to find something new. :)

Anonymous said...

You have tested it and writing form your personal experience or you find some information online?

The Style Bard said...

All Style Bard reviews and opinions are subjective but based on personal experience rather than someone else's research.