Updated Site + Terms and Services

[respheal]

Yes, we absolutely need to wait for Tapas to come out and clarify this.

However, the problem is that this is absolutely restricting our rights as creators to our own work. @AkivaMCohen, the lawyer that chimed in, theorizes that this even could apply to self-publishing our works. Tapas absolutely needs to clarify this immediately. Just because your series is big doesn't mean you should disregard the fact that this does negatively impact everyone on the site.

[LordVincent]

I publish my series on other sites so if they intended to use it in that manner I would be in trouble too.
But I am not going to worry until I see a confirmed reason to.

[Damatris]

I'm not freaking out or leaving (yet at least. Gonna wait for tapas to give a statement) but I'm iffy about the fact that the wording is really open. I'm not savvy with legalese but it could impact also self publishing and that's what I'm honestly worried about. And the fact that First Right of Refusal is actually something that publishers PAY to have from creators, not take for free. :/

[PotooGryphon]

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.

Yep exactly right. Honestly it's beneficial to creators that this is in the ToS. It's good to know that I have Tapas as a bargaining chip if another publisher offers a bid to my work. Now I have two competitors that must bid against each other and I get the highest bidder. And honestly most of us aren't even going to notice or use this. People are just spreading fear.

[infectedbloodcomics]

But I already am making money elsewhere. Why should I warn Tapastic, first? This place is not special, its business practices are awful, the forums are nearly dead, lots of functionalities are buggy, the same 4 comics are promoted over and over again, and now this?

There is nothing business savvy in Tapastic. They're on their way to their doom.

[LordVincent]

Thanks for putting what I'm trying to say more elogantly lol

[Candel_and_Goji]

Thanks for clarifying this @joannekwan and potoo
definitely hard for me to understand legalese. I'm still wary and I'm waiting for Tapas to come forward and clarify tho

[LordVincent]

If this is the case, why are you here?

[infectedbloodcomics]

I don't have to explain anything to you. Read what I said earlier, if you are interested in why I'm still here.

[PotooGryphon]

Oh gosh... This thread is a headache... Look can you guys chill a bit? Tapas is currently working on addressing this so just as @johnvincent suggested, chill and wait. I want to stop refreshing this thread for a bit and take a break from moderating.

Between this and the problem with visibility thread... The forums are more active then usual today.

[LordVincent]

I have sent michaelson a message about this notifying him of the mess and asking for a statement to calm the storm. I hate to bother him about it, but I think it's the only thing that will put breaks on this panicked development.

[egypturnash]

I'm sure nobody on Tapastic cares about the mirrors of my obscure-ass comics that I had here. There's like maybe four dozen people subscribed to them here. One of them has been on hiatus for longer than Tapastic has existed.

Nevertheless, Tapastic's retroactive grabbing of right of first refusal does not sit well with me, so I've deleted them.

[VermillionWorks]

I know about the internet mob mentality so I'm not freaking out or spazz-deleting my comic so quickly since Tapas has done me more good than harm and I have no plans for publishing right now, and this could be an easy fix with a more specific wording, though maannnn people are dropping out fast or are making plans to. XD

I don't know those behind Tapas so I can't say what was on their minds here, I seriously doubt their intentions with this thing were malicious, but welp, it's up to them now.

[LordVincent]

I swear I almost cry with joy for every time I see another person with some reason chime in to wild discussions like this. It's like finding a diamond when trying to walk through a shit tossing fight to get to the other side.
I need a drink, this has been mentally exhausting ._.

[Yoon]

A bit of a tweetstorm has been brewing today regarding the Right of First Refusal clause in our Terms of Service. We're reviewing the language and will follow up soon, but wish to avoid a knee-jerk reaction. In the meantime, we'd like to clarify our intent and hopefully assuage some fears and negative assumptions swirling about.

The purpose of the Right of First Refusal is not to take any rights away or steal your content. The purpose is to help you. We've witnessed multiple creators on Tapas accept unfair, uncompetitive deals and sign away their rights for far less than their work is worth. Creators who should have been paid 10x what they were offered agreeing to terrible deals because they either did not know their market value or did not have any competing offers.

We have connections in traditional publishing, merchandising, tv, and film. Our intention is to work with creators to bring additional offers to the table, and to create competition in the market so individuals get the best deal possible.

We did a poor job communicating this and for that we're sorry. We will continue to listen to you and make revisions to the language over the next week. Please let us know if you have additional questions or concerns, along with any suggestions on specific language you'd feel more comfortable with. We won't be able to respond to everyone individually, but will read and take all of your feedback into consideration.

Team Tapas

[bob_artist]

Right of First Refusal clauses shouldn't be part of a free hosting platform's TOS. That's something a professional publisher includes in their contract when they agree to pay you in exchange for the right to publish your work. I don't have any such relationship with Tapas, so I should have no such obligation to them. I'll keep an eye out over the next few days to see if the clause is removed. This is not an acceptable term to slip into a TOS that affects everyone, even if a handful of users don't care or feel they're getting enough from Tapas to be worth it.

(@VermillionWorks - I didn't mean for this to post in reply to your comment, I just meant it as a general reply. Sorry about that.)

[donathinfrye]

The purpose is to help you.

You don't help people by retrofitting your Terms of Service to take away their First Right of Refusal (something that other companies pay to have).

Nobody does that.

This reply isn't to bait you (I'm not a troll) -- but I think it's important that folks who are trying to make sense of this situation understand that this isn't business as usual, or that it's somehow in everyone's best interest. It's most certainly not.

[cuppamatt]

If that is truly your intention then you're going about it all wrong. None of that requires you to force your users into a legal position where they are REQUIRED to give you first refusal.

If the intention is truly to help the users then set up a submission process and publicise it. Let any user submit things (like under the TOS as stands) but do NOT require that you legally automatically gain first refusal. Doing so makes it simply seem like you're trying to cash in on successful artists.

Edit: I'm a published artist btw. No one should give away first refusal right unless it's part of a contract that is very much to your benefit and NEVER blanket over the entirety of your work.

SECOND EDIT (as the mods have started limiting our reply abilities so I'll stick this here for visibility)
In short I just need to make two clear points:

• First refusal rights over your work is a valuable thing that you should never give away for free
• First refusal rights are in no way required in order to achieve any of the things stated in Tapas' explanation above, they are usually something you would be paid for or would be part of a larger publishing deal (but even then not all that common)

Them offering more publishing options could be cool, you should not, however, give first refusal rights to anyone without a good publishing deal (even then it's not something I normally give away personally) or some other solidly beneficial contract.

[Kamikaze]

Thank you so much for the response, Team Tapas! The lawyer whose been helping folks out on twitter and doing a great job explaining is @AkivaMCohen and he may be able to help y'all communicate what you're trying to do in more certain terms. He's an IP lawyer, and even if you've got lawyers (which I'm sure you do) he may be able to poke holes and find ways to make the legaleese less scary for everyone.

I think @cuppamatt has a really good idea. Submissions (even some opened for short terms) could be a lot more sane/less scary way of going about this.

[bob_artist]

Please let us know if you have additional questions or concerns, along with any suggestions on specific language you'd feel more comfortable with.

My suggestion for specific language - Remove the clause in its entirety from the TOS, and instead include a section in your FAQ or help section telling creators who to contact if they would like Tapas to negotiate an offer for them. This way it's a choice instead of a requirement, but you can still fulfill your goal of helping creators avoid unfair and uncompetitive deals.