Updated Site + Terms and Services

[Zanreo]

As a hobbyist I kinda feel like this shouldn't apply to non-premium users - I just use this as a mirror and never intended this to be the site I make money on if it shouldn't even come to this.

[lkjoge]

One thing that bothers me is: does the Right of First Refusal also include the instances where you self-publish yourself? I have being doing that for a year actually ¯_(ツ)_/¯

I don't know, I started doing webcomics because I became tired of dealing with publishers and working full-time comics for a publisher doesn't look like it will give me a steady income, which is what I really need due to my personal situation. I don't really want to go through a publisher or just tell Tapas everytime "Hey, I'm self-publishing this, what's your offer?" to put it down after that to comply with the ToS.

When was this added to the ToS??

[azureXtwilight]

Noticing @michaelson about this, and the fact that some people are already making announcement of leaving / deleting their stuff from their site out of concern. It also contain some tweets that makes people quite worried all over twitter. Also, here's finally a lawyer's POV on the matter.

[respheal]

Unlikely, because with self-publishing you're not giving/selling/licensing the rights to your IP to anyone else.

As far as we know it was added with Tapastic became Tapas.

[Kamikaze]

Thanks for the link to that lawyer's twitter! It's definitely worrisome that this is an issue non-premium contracted creators have to deal with. :c

[lkjoge]

[...]If user desires to sell, license, exercise or otherwise dispose of, indirectly or directly, any rights or any interest in any content posted on the Platform[...]

Wouldn't it be "exercising of any rights or any interest" applicable in my case? xD The wording is very vague.

[Kamikaze]

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.

[LordVincent]

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.

[petitecreme]

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.

[Devika]

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!

[LordVincent]

Let tapas explain before you flip out and make assumptions ._.

[joannekwan]

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.

[Devika]

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 twitter 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.

[LordVincent]

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.

[LordVincent]

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.

[infectedbloodcomics]

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.

[joannekwan]

But you're not selling your right to anyone since it's your own site.

If user desires to sell, license, exercise or otherwise dispose of, indirectly or directly, any rights or any interest in any content

[knightjj]

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.

[LordVincent]

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)_/¯

[donathinfrye]

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.