258 / 303
May 2017

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

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

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.

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.

Whoof, that's almost a scary thing to hear! But in a way it makes sense, there's nothing wrong with refection in the aim to improve.

For an honest question that first answer almost sounds defensive, which makes me think maybe you're short on patience? =P It's okay Michael, you don't have to stroke anyone's ego or candy coat things, be honest. Neither of these answers actually answers her questions,

which actually makes for more frustration. If the questions were answered directly, I assure you it'd have been more effective in assuaging concerns. ^^ We're artists with integrity Michael, we can handle the truth. =D However, you do answer her last question with an honest answer and that really makes me happy, even though that answer is "I don't know, I'll get someone to clarify for you". If you addressed all the questions this way, that'd be great. You guys have stated your intentions a good number of times, I don't think there's much confusion that that's your statement for intention. =P

Heck to the yes.

I can almost see you rolling your eyes typing this out, hahahaha! I saw the notification but I dismissed it because I trust Tapas, so I didn't think I needed to bother checking. But I do agree, for something like this, an email would be a much more effective manner of communication.

It's good to hear directly from a dev team member, man. Thanks for doing what you can to communicate. I hope you or someone else can more directly and clearly answer @Devika's questions though, because I really am still curious as to the precise answers to those- it's the details of this clause that made it the monster it was/is.

Hm, I felt like I had answered the questions, maybe I'm misunderstanding the question? I tried to outline that no one was affected directly by the TOS updates in terms of enforcement and that our goal was not to affect sales to a third party, self-publishing, etc.

Could you clarify?

Something that kind of bother me is how the popular comics are now at the end, do someday they will return to be on the top?
I feel like tapas is forgetting the popular creators who have worked really hard to be where they are and have bring a lot of traffic to this amazing site.

from what I undrstand they shuffle the categories around every now and then, I think it's done randomly?

Also I think this is the first time I've ever seen someone ask for the popular comics to get more exposure :V

We're still experimenting with the front page in terms of placement, but don't fret, we'll likely move POPULAR towards the top and re-shift TRENDING a couple of times in the near future to see how that impacts user behavior. We'll also be experimenting with the algorithms some more in order to get a more diverse mix of series to be displayed.

You'd be surprised by how many requests we get for that.

No. Hiss. Bad.

2

lol

Margottoro was not directly referring to you or anyone else. They were not implying you don't work hard. It was a valid suggestion, that, according to Michael, has been made a lot:

Fact of the matter is, it's the popular comics that draw traffic into this site. Hell, I never would have found Tapastic (at least not as soon as I did) if it hadn't been for GamerCat outsourcing its views to its mirror here on Tapas. And I'm sure the people that draw those comics that happen to be popular miss seeing the Popular section at the top, just like how we miss seeing Fresh or Trending at the top.

This is about finding a balance that works, not making it a "Popular vs. unpopular" issue, because that's just a fight none of us are gonna win (and frankly I don't want to see us start). We all gotta compromise :stuck_out_tongue:

Right, so what I mean by not a direct answer, I mean to say that she asked "Who was affected", and your response was "the staff at no point enforced... the clause to interfere with any creators". That doesn't tell me who would have been affected, it told me you didn't enforce anything. That's what I mean by "not answering it". Like, yeah I get what you're trying to say but the question "who?" was not answered. We still don't know who, exactly, was affected by the clause. Because the answer to that isn't "nobody", of course the clause affects someone, or else it wouldn't have been written and implemented in the ToS, which outlines the relations between user and owner, right?

The second question was basically "are we talking 3rd party? Self-publish? Merch?" and your response was "distribution of merch, printing, etc.", which doesn't define whether we're talking about one and/or all of the mentioned venues. But here, actually, you do answer that, so that clears that up, doesn't it? =P Thank you for that. It's just that the details were requested and the response didn't exactly define those details. Not a big deal, hahaha.

I mean...

From the sounds of it, it sounds like their plan of action was as follows:

  1. Outline the clause in the ToS. Not to scare us, but because they're legally required to.

  2. Start reaching out to creators about offering financial help through competitive offers and partners that would help them find paid work THROUGH their work.

The first line I bolded is exactly what you're looking for - they didn't enforce the clause on anyone, so no creators were affected by this.

The second bolded line is what their intentions were. It's not like the whole dynamic of the website and our "rights" as users changed when they added that clause. Hell, we went two weeks without noticing it and literally nothing happened. Series were deleted during this time (I can only assume because new series are added and deleted every day), people tried the site and left, and nothing happened as a result of this clause. They had to add that clause because they're legally bound to add that clause. I highly doubt people would rather it not be outlined and just be done on a whim without anyone being notified. The update to the ToS was the notification of that. Meanwhile, people are behaving like the moment this clause was added, all their rights as a user was taken away, their mother was kidnapped, and their town was burned to the ground. Literally nothing happened in those two weeks to suggest our rights were actively being taken away.

What bothers me most about this whole ordeal is a lot of the creators leaving seem to have only based their decision on the shitstorm on twitter without coming to this forum first to see what's up, or waiting for news from the staff, or you know, actually e-mailing Tap about their concerns.

Agreed. My notification feed has been flooded with wall posts from creators who are either a.) leaving, or b.) staying, but reluctantly staying (while also posting links to their other mirror sites at the same time). The real shitty part is that most of these creators are doing wall posts only, so the large population of app users aren't being notified and are basically just being left to scratch their heads when their favorite creators/series are suddenly wiped off the site. They aren't being properly warned, which, ironically, a lot of these creators are demanding Tapas to do every time they update their ToS terms.

I don't think you understand the point of what was being asked. Nobody is concerned whether or not you could delete your comic under the clause, the clause literally included the fact that you are free to delete your content from the site if you don't agree. No one is confused about this, there is no need for clarification.

And, as I had already stated, it's not about who wasn't affected, it's about who was. You don't put in a clause in Terms of Service if it doesn't apply to anyone, that... literally means nothing. That'd be a meaningless and powerless clause. Of course it included someone, we want to know who exactly. That question still hasn't been answered: WHO. Still yet, no one is confused about their intentions, or rather their stated intentions. It has been clarified time and time again and it doesn't answer the actual question asked, but Michael did answer the question in his last post in response to me, so that's not even relevant now.

If you're still confused about what I was saying in regards to answering the actual question, please refer to the original post:

To clarify once and for all, the purpose of the questions is to define that which was broad and vague in the actual clause that everyone understands is no longer in effect. No one is assuming that their IP's were stolen, the concern is the precise function of the clause, which has yet to have been made perfectly, crystal clear. Now, they did say they were working on a public announcement regarding this, so actually I think these questions were asked FOR that announcement. It's not wrong for Michael to have attempted to answer them prior to the official announcement but I was simply saying that I don't think his answers are actual answers to the questions. It's like if @Devika asked a yes or no question and Michael answered with "I'm pretty sure the answer is maybe." That's not yes or no, it doesn't help clarify anything.

Now, that all being said, regarding the more important question - question #4- Michael already stated that he'd be requesting a team member more familiar with "legalese" to properly answer the question, so I think from this we'd likely get the direct answer for question #1 that's being sought. So I don't think any further attempts to answer are necessary from anyone who isn't employed by Tapas and qualified to answer the question.

Again, this isn't a big deal, no one's losing their heads. There are simply some of us who want to know exactly what the nature of the clause was. Everything's cool, no one's panicking. I mean, I'm not. And I don't think @Devika is either. Everything is groovy.

And, for anyone confused why there is a perceived dissonance in regards to intentions and actual wording, look up the term "Right of First Refusal". A quick google search should explain it well enough