Terms of Service TL;DR
This week saw an echo of praise around the tech community for photography website 500px’s approach to its Terms of Service page.
The basic idea being that the left column contains the verbose legal terms while the right column holds a brief layman’s translation. What I find worry is the vast number of web professionals who think this is a good idea and a great user-friendly design. It’s not!
Start by considering 500px’s introduction to their ToS:
If you want to use this service you have to read and accept the full version. This approach makes for an even longer read than normal — brevity here is a trick. Now consider 500px co-founder Evgeny Tchebotarev’s response to this praise:
While it’s not legally binding and doesn’t tell everything that is on the left side of the terms, it sums up things that we believe are important to photographers.
- Minimise liability of the service provider.
- Maximise responsibility of the user.
- Take full rights to the users data.
I don’t pretend this practice isn’t messed up, law is fucked up, but it exists and in fairness to 500px it’s very difficult to operate a website without it. Here’s one of 500px’s killer lines:
By posting Content to the Site you hereby grant to 500px a non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content in connection with the Services.
This and many other points apparently translate to two simple notions:
Your photos will preserve whatever copyright they had before uploading to this site. We will protect the copyright and will not sell your photos without your permission.
Remember, the brief version is not “legally binding” and therefore irrelevant to the ToS. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but in reality a user is in fact giving 500px license to effectively do anything they like. This includes selling their photos (permission is given by accepting the ToS). Naturally a user retains copyright, but they’ve also agreed to the world’s most one-sided license agreement ever conceived. Almost every single website you sign up to has a similar catch-all agreement.
Best intentions aside, this practice can only confuse the user more. Now instead of reading nothing users are only going to read the nice-but-useless version. And that, ultimately, is even more bullshit than the original. On the plus side it does shine some light on the founders morals if we choose to trust what we read. Because when you really read a website’s _Terms of Service_, trust is all you have.