Cryptoart

Design

Just a heads up, if you're uploading OC to Rodeo...

https://x.com/amadon/status/1877118861012873361

hi, i work with licensing contracts on a daily basis. i *DO NOT* have a legal background in Intellectual Property, but my boss does and after working with her for 3yrs here's my two cents:

1) things that are normal in this clause imo:
having the rights to use artists' images for use on social media, in press, exhibitions, on printed materials (magazines, exhibition flyers, etc)--anything that promotes Rodeo and consequently the artist's work (whom, the clause should mention but does not, is ALWAYS credited at a bare minimum. I'm sure Rodeo would credit the artists, though under this clause they are not legally obliged to).

⚠️ things that concern me in thread

2) things that should be changed/specified imo:
the fact that the rights are transferrable concerns me. this means Foundation/Rodeo can provide the rights to your work to someone else, without your permission. 

in addition the works are sublicensable, which isn't unusual actually, even though I don't like sublicensing, but should be specified in which contexts they would need a sublicense. under the clause as it is now, Rodeo can earn money for a service or product where the artist's work is included and are not obliged to pay them, eg: if they launch a streaming subscription service to exhibit works on TVs. These are instances where ethically I believe artists MUST be paid a royalties at a minimum. however under this clause, they could technically launch said subscription service, and artists would get nothing.

₊‧°𐐪♡𐑂°‧₊ writing about digital art & curating things 
₊‧°𐐪♡𐑂°‧₊ Artistic Manager @ Artpoint.
Building /lanparty 💾 Hosting /curation ✨

as a follow up, last year i worked on a project with an artist where the sale of his intellectual property for 3 artworks totalled *42000 euros* for the full buy out, for use worldwide and in perpetuity.

and artists give this to social media platforms for free 😭

and by the way, Zora has the same terms except they do not mention that the rights are transferable and they also add this which is… nicer? lol

“For clarity, Zora does not claim any ownership of User Content and has no right to use User Content other than in accordance with these terms or otherwise absent your express permission.”

linking follow up casts here to centralise my thoughts a bit and in case anyone else is interested.

cc @ramsey @loriann @foodmasku @tinyrainboot

artist 🗡️ ✨

https://linktr.ee/tinyrainboot

I make meals into masks and then eat them.🥪 /foodmasku 🌈 rc.xyz/foodmasku 🗽

Building ON AIR ☁️🧘🏻‍♀️ /onair | Join us: https://hypersub.withfabric.xyz/collection/on-aironchain-1iacttfy6pc74

Crypto enthusiast, ethics, movies and photography.

Founder of /gentlemanswagers

linking follow up casts here to centralise my thoughts a bit and in case anyone else is interested.

cc @ramsey @loriann @foodmasku @tinyrainboot 

https://warpcast.com/benna/0xb48c1811

https://warpcast.com/benna/0xf8011de8

Thanks for the licensing alpha! 500 $degen

Daaamn... And I was so naive to think rodeo is better than for example instagram, cos this is a web3 dApp ergo should  be respecting authorship and copyrights... But looks like they are not much different. Well... I guess time to finally drop this silly game.  1000 $degen for you Viennna for highlighting this!

good that you mention 'transferable nature of the NFT being sold', because a transferable licence and transfer of an NFT are actually two different things. In Rodeo's T&Cs, just under the paragraph we're discussing, there's the section on 'rights for users' (aka: collectors). This paragraph deliberately specifies that collectors can buy/sell/transfer NFTs but that they do NOT have a transferable licence / ownership of intellectual property of the NFT. Transfering an NFT is fine and normal. A *transferable licence* is questionable imo.

and re: the part you're concerned with, this is the part that I am most ok with haha. it's actually the most normal and standard, assuming these communications are in the interest of promoting Rodeo and its artists. only thing they're missing here is that artists should always been credited at minimum, if they can be paid a small fee for inclusion, even better (but basically never happens and artists are happy to receive this promotion for free).

Hi Benna, thank you (and your boss) very much for your input. 

Agreed on the standard "normal" things. Platform needs to operate in a way they imagined it to operate. And very much agreed on the Pt 2 (transferrable right should be specified, though I do think this is more related to the nature of NFTs being sold (which can be resold later on by "users")). 

What I personally have the biggest "problem" is Terms of Usage part 4.B.b.(i) which is a bit too wide for my taste. "display or perform such Original Content on the Rodeo Platform, a third party platform, social media posts, blogs, editorials, advertising, market reports, virtual galleries, museums, virtual environments, editorials, or to the public"...  This IMO goes a bit beyond of pure distribution and promoting the platform or the works.