It's broad for a reason. The more broad the wording the more it can encompass. The lawyers thread linked above basically says it comes down to this: Legally, if you decide to sell prints of your own work without asking for an offer 30 days beforehand, they can pursue legal action against you. That doesn't mean they WILL, but based on the broad definitions and wording here they could.
Eh, all I want to know is if tapas thinks it's okay for me to keep my redbubble up with this new ToS update since they are selling my shirts. The designs tapas is selling are of course not available on my redbubble.
So I guess its off to Webtoon or back to Smackjeeves, those that can, make their own sites or tumblr.
God it's just like Inkblazers. I honest to god never though I would go through this again.
Feeling more worried now that it's been pointed out how vague and all-encompassing it is. Basically, if you want to monetize your series at all, you'll always have to run to tapas for approval first, and that's just not okay.
Another thing I've been wondering about... There are literally thousands of comics on this site. Are they expecting to negotiate with all of them? That seems plain unrealistic when they don't even have the manpower to fix the avatar issue!
I doubt Tapas wants the first right to merchandise since they don't really manufacture anything, so Soc6 and Redbubble shops should be okay.
I just agree with and really liked @Kaykedrawsthings's post earlier, so I never gave this "Right of First Refusal" clause a second thought before today when suddenly everyone's losing their minds over it.
It's been two weeks since this was first brought up in this thread... Not saying I don't agree with you, but they can only stay silent for so long before people get antsy. Also, while I agree with @Kaykedrawsthings's perspective, when we have actual lawyers pointing out how vague it is, I think there is basis for some worry here. If nothing else, tapas can definitely improve the wording to make it more clear about 1. what they really mean, 2. what they want to get out of this and 3. what's in it for the authors. Basically there are a lot of unanswered questions and tapas is being very silent on this issue.
I think what fuels a lot of anxiety is also Der-Shing's post on twitter12 on how tapastic used to be Comic Panda, which lifted a bunch of comics to their site without the authors' consent.
Edit: Then there's the fact that such a clause is written in without being specifically announced that's worrying too.
Ah I see, that's kind of what I was thinking too but it's good to hear a second opinion.
And yeah. That, and I don't see what forum avatars have to do with legal rights.
As someone said, there are thousands of comics on the site. They're not gonna run around messing with small hobbyists. The rule was probably added for their premium users, and it can even be used favorably by more successful artists when they are given an offer by another publisher, as has previously been stated in this thread.
Keep in mind that tapas has been extremely busy around and after the site update. They are hard at work. They probably aren't keeping silent to avoid the issue but rather to figure out a good way to handle it, while still keeping up with other work and management.
This beautiful update of the ToS has essentially put me in violation of terms, since I already am making money on my own website. So, unless the ToS doesn't change really soon, I will quit, too.
I agree with that we shouldn't jump to conclusions and wait for Tapas answer on all this. I worked way to hard on my comic for years to delete it right this second.
However I think people are in their right to be concerned about this. Especially after the posts of Der-Shing and the lawyer on twitter. We can also not just Interpret this as being for premium comics only. It doesn't say so in the TOS thus it's not a fact.
True they probably wont target 1000s of little creators if in case of the worst case scenario. but that doesn't make it less bad! The bigger creators will still be impacted. every creator targeted counts as one to many.
And yeah Tapas is probably busy. but that shouldn't be an excuse. Seeing how many (popular) creators are already leaving they need to get on this asap. They knew what they ment to say with this update when they wrote it so they should let us know.
Emotional exaggeration and fearspreading through group mentality is unprofessional and immature. Calm down a little and realize that professional people have a lot of work to do and that just because you are the main character in your own story, that doesn't mean you out of all their tasks today is their one and only priority.
As I said, take a chill pill and let tapas explain before you create assumptions, spread those assumptions and burn everything down.
Then again, the people who lose out are the people who leave, since they lose a good mirror and source of attention, and by extension income. So I don't even know why I bother pointing this out. Go ahead, shoot yourselves in the foot. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
First Right of Refusal does not belong in a website's Terms of Service, full-stop.
First Right of Refusal being retroactively applied without signed consent is not the sort of thing that creators should accept as ethical behavior.
It's just not normal or appropriate behavior. I'm interested in the response, but it's the intent that made such a breach of normal, ethical practices possible that concerns me most.
Show me the creators you speak of? So far all I see is medium-small creators throwing notices onto their profile where they blow it all out of proportion. It's irrational rumorspreading and it annoys me to the point that the last person I saw doing it I unsubbed to.
I would like to add that my partner and myself came to Tapastic about a month ago after joining in a skype call with Michael Son in which it was made expressly clear to us that Tapas creators retain full and complete rights to their work. I still need time to fully understand the updated ToS but this feels like a betrayal of that right off the bat, especially for us as new creators hoping to publish on several platforms.
Publishing on other platforms is not an issue. If tapas meant anything weird with this they would have taken advantage of their assumed "rights" long ago.
Most really popular comics on the site are on other places and it steals potential traffic for tapas. Sarah's Scribbles is on Webtoon. AMOLAD is on Webtoon. The list goes on. They haven't been struck. Small creators aren't being struck.
You'd think they'd take advantage of the rule before people flipped out like this if that was what they intended.
Ah, but what makes a man or woman small? Is it the amount of money they make? Or perhaps the number of friends that they have? Or else, maybe it is the number of people who look at what they are doing?
Or, perhaps, it's when they see other people with stories to tell and creative goals as numbers ... instead of people with inherent rights.
You still have all your rights! What I gather is that basically if you're offered money by another platform or publisher to exclusively go with them because your work has potential to make it big, Tap wants to see if they can make a better offer to you and in the end both parties profit.
