My Funny Picture

A question about copyright?

This is pretty technical, so kudos to anyone who can answer. Here's the thing, I'm an amateur artist and I want to post some stuff of mine on a small website, a comic book to be precise. Also on this website would be several "how to draw" tutorials, and I wanted to use some of my characters as examples for cartooning. More then just step by step pictures I wanted to post videos as well, but through an external site for the sake of host space. Copyright is a funny thing you know, and with the long terms of service on every web based service today a few terms looked like loopholes to me. The TOS stated the following on copyright: "...by submitting Content to [company], you hereby grant [company] a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and [company]'s (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels." It's that "derivative works" part that gets me, because it sounds to me like that's granting an intellectual license over the work. The TOS states later that such license would expire after the content was removed from the service, but states nothing exclusively about the status of the "derivative works" at such point; though it is implied that they would cease to be shown as well. So here's the question: In the event that I post a "how to draw" video of one of my characters from my comic, would use of that character in a drawing/comic/cartoon done by this company, or one of it's partners, be considered a "derivative work"? My fear is that if, by some great chance, my little hobby comic becomes famous that this company would be able to publish "derivative works" of my characters if the "how to" videos were still on their service at that time. If that's the case, my precious little guys and gals could appear on the internet doing all sorts of out of character things and I wouldn't be able to do a darn thing about it! One thing folks. Please don't post the obvious solution as an answer, ie: "If you're that worried about it just don't use your characters." It's inescapable. Everywhere I look I keep running into the same legal jargon, not just on this service but lots others as well. I want to post my work where people can see it, but I don't want to do it at the risk of my copyright. And I know also that such underhanded theft isn't the reason why this language is used, but all I want to know is COULD it be used this way if someone was of a mind to?

Public Comments

1. Some sites do not include the sublicensable and transferable license, and you are (in theory) only granting rights to other subscribers of that service to download and view your works (not further modify and republish for their own purposes). This goes without saying on most sites because the "whole idea" of posting something is to give the host company a license to give an "implied license" to other users to download whatever you upload, but only one copy for their personal non-commercial use. Also note that these licenses do not usually include the words, "irrevocable" or "in perpetuity", which would signal that you can never revoke your license. As you say, some do agree to take steps to prevent further "distribution" of your works once you have deleted them or marked them "private" or whatever. You can almost ALWAYS revoke a license in which the licensee has no expectation of quasi-ownership of your future rights (i.e., once we have it, you're never getting it back). It may be important to watch for the words "non-exclusive" as well, as some distributors may not realize that exclusive license of copyright also gives them the right to sue infringers of YOUR copyright -- not a place you want to be. On a different note, if and when your works become famous enough that you can pay white-shoe lawyers to bash infringers, the defendant has the burden of proving the affirmative defense of "license".