Tag: not legal advice

Warning: Paypal new User Agreement changes, “All Your Stuff Belongs To Us”








Coming to all July 1, 2015, All Your Copyrighted material, Trademarked, Intellectual Ideas, and Much More will belong to Paypal if you use their services.

Amendment to the PayPal User Agreement.

Intellectual Property

We are adding a new paragraph to section 1.3., which outlines the licence and rights that you give to us and to the PayPal Group (see paragraph 12 below for the definition of “PayPal Group”) to use content that you post for publication using the Services. A similar paragraph features in the Privacy Policy, which is removed by the addition of this paragraph to the User Agreement. The new paragraph at section 1.3 reads as follows:

“When providing us with content or posting content (in each case for publication, whether on- or off-line) using the Services, you grant the PayPal Group a non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, sublicensable (through multiple tiers) right to exercise any and all copyright, publicity, trademarks, database rights and intellectual property rights you have in the content, in any media known now or in the future. Further, to the fullest extent permitted under applicable law, you waive your moral rights and promise not to assert such rights against the PayPal Group, its sublicensees or assignees. You represent and warrant that none of the following infringe any intellectual property right: your provision of content to us, your posting of content using the Services, and the PayPal Group’s use of such content (including of works derived from it) in connection with the Services.”

I’m switching to Google Wallet or something else. Paypal lost me.

Wow lost me too, PayPal. That’s seriously uncool.

Thanks for the link to Google Wallet because uh, nope. Nope nope nope

can someone mind breaking this down to simple speech i don’t ndertsa d what they wrote |D

TL;DR version: the moment you provide PayPal with content, said content belongs to them.

Not cool, PayPal.


Like say you make an art commission to an individual with original characters, or you are selling videos,video games, logo, or books that you made, all that content you sold and had Intellectual rights to through Paypal, even if you copyrighted them or trademarked them, Paypal is trying to say because you used their services THEY now own the rights to it. No where in the writing does it say “unless you had previous trademark or copyrights,” Nope. They are saying they own it regardless, and you are agreeing to them owning your works digitally or physically and future works from these forms of art and characters, they will own it.

sovietcatparty eversparks heatheruru and Uhhh, everyone else who may do commissions

Should probably read a bit closer though:

PayPal Group (see paragraph 12 below for the definition of “PayPal Group”) to use content that you post for publication using the Services.


When providing us with content or posting content (in each case for publication, whether on- or off-line)

If you’re not publishing content through PayPal I don’t see how this applies.






(( Sometimes I see Tumblr Roleplayers peppering their posts with 100×100 px icons which are, more often than not, re-purposed fanart belonging to another individual.

I wish to address this and how it is wrong, so if you would please give me a few moments of your time, I…

((I will say this and only this: Could not the same argument be made every time you post a GIF or a picture from a licensed work? I agree that artwork should only be used with permission, but I just want it put in perspective.))

((While the previous one makes a really good point, the post above makes a pretty valid point too. Might as well credit Square Enix for every icon taken from official work, aye?

But you don’t see anyone doing that, do you?

Not trying to justify art theft here, but just trying to make a point.

Just credit where credit is due, aye?))

Unfortunately, that’s a pretty wide gap in perspective.

Yes, technically and ideally, that may be true, though I don’t personally know the legality of these things when it comes to spreading official/commercial works.

If we want to nitpick then yes, it would be best to credit official sources too, even if those should be otherwise obvious. But it does not invalidate the previous point, and it’s quite honestly something that’s just not going to happen in any widespread manner.

But someone’s personal — and in most (though certainly not all) cases, not commercial or professional — artwork is a rather different matter. This isn’t something produced of industry, and it’s something that deserves the recognition and credit toward its maker.

There’s no difference, unless the person has given you authorization to redistribute it, then you’re committing copyright infringement, (not thievery) and are technically in violation of the ToS.