Apr 2017
244 / 303
May 2017
Sep 2018
LordVincent
May '17

I am saying this as a person who isn't inclined to automatically agree with Uzuki: I don't think they had attitude at all.
Especially not when compared to the person they replied to. The person they replied to made passive agressive (and sometimes plain agressive) remarks to people in this thread, kept saying "I WANNA LEAVE HOW CAN I DO THAT YOU ARE KEEPING ME STUCK!!!". Uzuki's reply was simple and to the point since apparently this person doesn't do too well with legalese. People kept saying that posting on other places or leaving wouldn't be a problem and they refused to understand so the way I saw it they were basically demanding a clear cut reply.

I am not surprised that people are spreading that reply taken out of that context though, still not even recognizing that the "offensive" part is gone. People like to spread drama and burn witches, and they hate to have to recognize that there is no longer a reason to do so. Noone dares stand up to them because then they, too, get burnt.

This type of behaviour is primitive, immature and unprofessional. I can understand being paranoid or worried for your rights, but if that's what you truly were you would look at the facts:

  1. Tapas has stated their intentions. Multiple times.
  2. Tapas has proven those intentions by not using this part of the ToS maliciously. Seriously, if they DID intend to sneak something like this into ToS with malicious intent, they wouldn't have made an unusually huge announcement about the ToS changing and they wouldn't have waited these 2 weeks before using it. The intentions you guys imply are more likely to kill their business than help it and the only way they could actually have benefitted from it would be if they struck fast and hard on the creators that get the best stats. They didn't do this, which is why I wasn't the least bit worried.
  3. Even considering all of this, the clause has now been removed.

Looking at this, anyone who was worried about their rights should no longer be worried, and they should realize there is no reason to spread out-of-context comments and other crap to make it seem like tapas is a corporate asshole that's trying to kidnap your mother and sell her to the mafia or something. If you still want to leave, then just do so. Of course tapas doesn't want to lose site users and creators, but if you are only hanging around to be passive agressive to other users and ask how you can leave or talk about how tapas is just trash no matter what they do and is "going to shit", then you obviously don't have much hope for this platform and you aren't very nice company for us other creators and users. Do everyone a favor and move somewhere you feel more comfortable, but do this in the mature manner: Without overblowing things on twitter and spreading rumors. You are killing opportunities for tapas creators that are staying.

GoldenPlume
May '17

The amazingly crazy thing about this whole ordeal is we went through this very madness weeks ago when the revised ToS first came out and the website went from Tapastic to Tapas. No one really seemed to notice the changes then...

Talk about delayed response. Anyhow, we're essentially weeks into the future vs. most of the community right now and it's all good out here in Tomorrow Land.

Just breathe everyone.

If anything we just wish that staff would spend more time communicating prior to doing these huge changes to the website and stuff. People are putting 1000s of hours and $1000s into their webcomics and staff really needs to become more sensitive to how important these works are to us.

Guess when there's 30,000+ series it can get to the point of taking creators for granted . . . or something.

Really can't answer this one. Only staff can.

AnnaLandin
May '17

I can't speak for others, but I did not receive any notification of these changes having been made, and I have been in a mad deadline crunch on freelance work for the past couple of months, and have therefore not checked in regularly on the forums either. I had entirely missed this addition to the ToS.

It is entirely possible that whatever notification I was supposed to receive just never made it all the way to me, but the fact remains that it didn't. I can only assume I am not alone in this - and it is probably contributing to this delayed response to the change.

I am glad to see the clause has been removed, as I do not feel it belonged in the ToS to begin with. It is too broad, and I don't feel comfortable giving Tapas blanket consent to Right of Refusal to my work in that manner. First Right of Refusal is, in and of itself, not a horrible idea, but it is normally part of a contract negotiation and is something that a publishers pays the creator for, which is not what this was.

If Tapas wants to help creators, then there are better ways to go about it than this ToS-change. Creating a separate submissions-service, or restricting this type of clause to the Premium-content creators only would be good steps. And I agree that in general, Tapas needs to be better at communicating these things prior to the change being made.

I have not yet decided whether to keep my comics here or take them elsewhere, but this whole thing - the ToS-changes, the response from Tapas, etc., - has certainly made me consider my options.

elixiadragmire
May '17
heterodont

I get that, the problem is 90% of creators dont use the forums or even know it exists!

This clause is normally used in publishing house when signing a contract for 6 figures! Not in a TOS of a free services, thats the crux of the issue. Because of what the clause could possibly do, the price of using it is very high.
The spread of this wasnt just twitter either, I'm in a big FB group that basically encompasses the whole of the UK indie press, thats UK publishers, illustrators, writers and artists they more or less act as an union. They view of the clause wasn't glowing. Thats rather damaging on the whole and this is to people that use these types of contracts regularly.

as @annalandin said I personally I didnt recieve a notification regarding these changes also. For a clause this overreaching it should have been declared as plain as the nose on your face.

Now did I think Tapas WOULD of been IP grabbing? eh, well no not really but greater artist have been stung with less. Given the consistent shift in Tapas company goals (youtude of comics, short form over longform, everyone needs to do vertical scrolling, we do books now) its had to say that ignoring a breach in personally copyright (techincally a FROR does somewhat override your copyright to excerise use of the IP) may of biten lots of creators in the backside later if and when the company changes it corporate goals again or a publisher you pitch to doesnt like the idea of responding to that particular clause.
It could have been a paper tiger but that could have been ugly.

Now I know that tapas ... means well but can go about it the whole wrong way, (the road to hell is pathed with good intentions!) So I wasnt going to jump ship until I heard a response and the removal is fine with me, great even, since it kinda left me with a problem of self publishing (yes the clause covers that 'any right to excerise use') and I think a more open approach, an opt in approach would be best for the platform!

Now we just wait for the storm to die off and put the mess behind us

foducool
May '17
michaelson

I think the backlash came from how shady it sounded :/
Why tell people they are obligated to submit their work to you for negotiation in the first place?
If you're such a great and fair publisher, the authors should flock to you in the first place.

You probably should advertise your role as a publisher better towards your creators instead of doing that, remind them that you can help them with this and surely better than most of the other guys lol

I'm just a reader, but I'm kinda looking forward on how you'll spin that next time, because I doubt you'll leave it at that

popsiclestick
May '17
nolongerusetheforum

Look, my guy, as creators, we owe you nothing. We work our socks off to produce fresh new content for basically no compensation (unless you count the couple of pennies from ads/tips lmao).
If we didn't do that, there wouldn't be anything for readers TO read. I'm all for listening to both sides of the story but please first remove your entitled attitude towards the content produced on this site.
We're not being selfish. This is our content, that we sacrificed our time to create. We have every right to be suspicious of any shady looking clauses that may affect our rights regarding what we do with our own art.
I don't wanna be a salty sue, but please think about those who are producing the content you read, for free.

LordVincent
May '17

Tapas made multiple notifications of the ToS change, including a yellow banner at the top of the main page that stated ToS had been changed, asking everyone to read it through. They did not brush this under the rug.

They didn't intend to tell people this though, that was a miscommunication and a misunderstanding type of deal.
As I said, if they had malicious intent they would have been quick to strike the most popular comics with that part of the ToS BEFORE it got backlash, and they wouldn't have made a forum thread and a notification at the top of the site. They would have made a small notification somewhere at the bottom to use as an excuse. They never did this, which should be a sign to everyone that there was never malicious intent and we all need to calm down.

Devika
May '17
Yoon

Good morning everyone. I find that the core of this issue is still unaddressed, namely what exactly we're discussing here. Removing the TOS has taken away the sword dangling above our collective head, so I hope the discussion can be a bit calmer now, but questions remain.

So here I have some questions that if answered in non-legalese I think would clear up a lot smoke, because there are so many assumptions floating around right now. There are those seeing this as a safe bargaining chip, and there are those that see a potential threat to their IP, both based on wildly different interpretations of the loosely worded clause.

So here goes:

  1. Who was affected? Premium posters? Creators above a certain sub count? Every comic poster on the site?
  2. Under what circumstances were #1 affected? When selling rights to a third party? When self-publishing? When selling merchandise?
  3. What exactly did you want these people (#1) to do under these circumstances (#2)?
  4. Last, but perhaps the most important: ROFR or ROFO? You described a "right of first offer" (negotiate in good faith with tapas first) but titled it as "right of first refusal" (tapas gets the right to contracts first). There is a massive difference between these, and a lot of artists, especially on twitter, are alarmed because they assume it's, as the title implied, a ROFR, which is greatly restrictive. Those in favor of the TOS seem to go by the description, which leans towards a ROFO, which is much less restrictive as there is no obligation to enter a contract with tapas first. The dissonance between the title and description makes for a very wonky legal basis, and I think most people are very uncomfortable with that - as should tapas be, because it doesn't help them either!

Again, that the TOS have been deleted doesn't eliminate these questions, because it's not just about the clause itself, but tapas' intentions. Was it an IP grab, or a failure to write good TOS that everyone understands?

jmhenry
May '17
1
PotooGryphon

The sad truth is that mods aren't just like everyone else where the forums are concerned. You may not be directly connected to tapas, but you all still represent its community. When you guys act unprofessionally, it sticks out more and makes the community look bad.

^^^ This is exactly why Uzuki's comment, while his own, is still damaging to the site and the community in general. It's a bit of an uncomfortable truth, but for the average person, perception matters more than truth. It doesn't matter that mods are unpaid volunteers to people looking at this from the outside, all they see when they see a mod acting unprofessionally, is more reason to stay away from tapas. You guys have a greater impact on the site's/community's image than you realize.

LordVincent
May '17

The moderators do become a bit of a "face" for tapas in instances like this, yes. However I feel that they have been polite considering the levels of shit that has been thrown in this thread.
Each and every single individual on twitter is also responsible to, as adults, check facts and circumstances before spreading things assuming them to be truth. They are not doing this. That, in my opinion, makes them unprofessional and immature.

It's high school tactics. Taking things out of context, twisting them and spreading them as a blown up rumor is shit you'd expect to se teenagers doing. Not rational adults trying to be professional creators.

I understand that people had concerns. So did I when I first heard of this thing. But if you have concerns, the best course of action is to stop, think, consider the circumstances and facts in a reasonable manner, and NOT just air out all your assumptions on twitter. This would have been acceptable if what you were spreading were confirmed facts. It wasn't and still isn't. You are spreading false information and hurting tapas creators in the process.

I understand that you want to protect people who work hard on their comics, but by spreading false information you are hurting the exact people that you are trying to protect. This is why you need to factcheck and be patient before spreading rumors.

jmhenry
May '17
1

Unfortunately, not every adult is a philosopher, eager to think first and act later, as much as I'd like to see it. That's just the nature of human beings, there's an unfortunate tendency to react first.(like I said: Perception<<<< Truth )

Most folks posting on social media aren't worried about looking professional, especially if it's their personal account. Unlike forum mods, individual people only represent themselves, there's not much you can do about how they respond to things.

BubooSenchan
May '17

Also I would like for Tapastic to fix the front page in pc, as other creators and me say (it's a little too much)
I like @JohnVincent idea of:

fleetinginfinity
May '17
LordVincent

Notifications on the site are not enough when a large percentage of users only use Tapastic as a mirror. A major change like that to the Terms of Service deserved at least an e-mail, as that's the equivalent of written communication documenting the change in this digital age, and I checked, there was not one. So weeks ago when other people were worried about this, I didn't know. The moment someone showed it in a Facebook group yesterday was the first I heard about it.

I'm glad to see the clause is gone, but notifications on a site are not enough for a Terms of Service change.

azureXtwilight
May '17

I just think that in order to avoid a falling out like this, before they do something like this again and add more clauses, they should notify people before hands, see what the majority of users would react?

UzukiCheverie
May '17
1

Okay guys, the discussion is just completely off-topic now. A lot of us, myself included, haven't gotten a chance to stop, breathe, and collect our bearings since yesterday, so I'm gonna lock this thread for a bit so we can do just that. After a few hours, I'll open it again, and HOPEFULLY the second attempt will go smoother. For now though, there's really nothing left to discuss as the situation has been resolved; I don't want y'all to feel like I'm barring your voice, but we're sorta just mulling around in a circlejerk, which isn't good for anyone lol

Go on out there and enjoy your Friday <3

closed May 19, '17

michaelsonSenior Editor in Chief, here to help you
May '17
NanettesClouds

For now, we feel that we need to really reflect on the spirit of the clause and see what creators are comfortable with and until then we won't be implementing this offer.

We hope to expand the editorial and content team with new members that are more community focused. This will entail creating community events and more open dialogue in the future.

As for the transgressions during the Comic Panda iteration, almost all of that occurred prior to my arrival at the company. To the best of my knowledge, the first iteration of Comic Panda was never intended to be public facing. The site was under what is known as an alpha launch, which basically means that it was meant to test out the theory of the site and some of the basic functionality, kind of like a proof of product. To better populate the site and test with live data, I believe the content team at the time wrongfully used actual comics without permission. These were not monetized, and meant specifically to show early investors early concepts of the site.

Of course, all of those transgressions go against the ethos of Tapas, as we've always championed creators' rights and freedoms while publishing on the platform. And as you've mentioned, have performed DMCA, and other take downs on behalf of creators.

The staffers during that time are no longer with Tapas.

During the time in which the TOS was updated to include to the Right of First Refusal, the staff at no point enforced or sought out to enforce the clause to interfere with any creators.

Our original intent was to make competitive offers to creators or introduce them to our various partners to help, whether it was in regards to the production and distribution of merchandise, printing, etc.

I, unfortunately, cannot comment on the ROFR or ROFO clarification as I, personally, don't have the legalese to properly explain. But I will ask a fellow staffer to look into it and bring some clarification.

We will be revisiting our methodology in how we deploy our messaging in regards to TOS updates.

When the TOS was updated, we sent a desktop notification, front page ribbon (located above the spotlight section) which required dismissal, in-app pop-up as well as social media and forum posts. Of course, this does not guarantee the visibility of the TOS updates, so we will try out best to improve upon this.

We do small focus groups for our updates, but will hopefully expand this in the future.

There are a few comments that have derailed the discussion that I'll be archiving from this topic.

Please refrain from attacking one another, and please keep a cordial decorum.

I understand everyone's frustrations with the recent turn of events, and we promise that we are listening to everyone's feedback and are trying to make better and more informed decisions.

opened May 19, '17

donathinfrye
May '17
michaelson

Why would Tapas have inserted the Right of First Refusal clause into the Terms of Service, rather than reached out to creators that it was interested in making an offer to, or offer advice to?

For a lot of folks who have raised their voices on this issue, it's the inability to reconcile what you're saying with what logic and experience dictate that lingers. For me, at the very least, that's the unanswered question.

michaelsonSenior Editor in Chief, here to help you
May '17

We had hoped that this was a scalable solution to our over 23,000 creators.

Of course, as many have mentioned, a Right of First Refusal does not belong in the terms of service of an open publishing platform, especially at the start of the relationship with the creator.