I am new to Fiverr and trying to understand how the Copyrights work.
According to TOS:
Ownership and limitations: When purchasing a Gig on Fiverr, unless clearly stated otherwise on the Seller’s Gig page/description, when the work is delivered, and subject to payment, the Buyer is granted all intellectual property rights, including but not limited to, copyrights for the work delivered from the Seller, and the Seller waives any and all moral rights therein. https://www.fiverr.com/terms_of_service
Unless stated otherwise, let’s say a song producer creates a song, and a buyer buys it, then the buyer gets the Copyright? The Copyright transfer to that buyer? And they can do anything with the song, even distribute it and sell it on various online music stores, under the own name, correct?
If you have a gig with two tiers; basic and then “for commercial use” - What’s stopping the buyer from buying the “basic” gig and then use it for commercial use? If basic transfer the Copyright to the buyer, then legally, they could simply just use it full commercial use since… they own all rights?
I am just curious about this and appreciate feedback on question 1) and 2)
“unless clearly stated otherwise on the Seller’s Gig page/description”
You’ve answered your own question. If the buyer has a tier that includes commercial license and another that doesn’t, if you buy the one that doesn’t you don’t have a commercial license. Seems pretty obvious to me.
basically a gig shouldn’t be set up that way. what would happen is that the gig description would mention commercial rights, and commercial rights would probably also be available as a gig extra, but would be included in the higher tier
i have heard it argued though that the TOS is so badly written, and some gigs are set up so confusingly that your scenario could happen, where the higher tier gets commercial rights, but the lower tier accidentally gets full rights
i’d love to be a fly on the wall in a copyright dispute originating from a fiverr gig tbh
You are pinpointing the biggest problem with commercial rights as written on fiverr. I guess what counts at the end is what is written inside an order and the communication between buyers. They both can be used as a written proof
So if you include the commercial use license inside the order, and it is visible and “checked” on the order page, the seller is covered, he keeps ownership rights, and buyer gets commercial use license.
But If the buyer doesn’t buy a commercial use license, therefore the commercial use license is not checked on the order page, you are exposed to a risk where buyer can claim “all intelectual property rights” according to your point 1.
However, If the buyer doesn’t buy the commercial use license, and the seller send them a message explaining what the license is and let him confirm that he understands and doesn’t want one and hasn’t bought one, that still represents a written proof that the buyer had the chance to buy the license, but hasn’t bought one. The sellers keeps, in theory, the ownership rights.
Therefore it is obvious, including the commercial use license by default is always better for a seller than giving an option for buying it as an extra (According to how things are written on fiverr at this moment).
This is all hypothetical, getting to court and having only written proofs from fiverr message exchanges and orders will be something hard to pull off. But, by covering yourself as a seller the proper way, you may avoid someone writing on e.g. your youbtube channel “Give me back my song, you don’t have the right to use it” or having the risk to have your video/song deleted online because of that.
I mean, where did you get that the “extra commercial” checkbox does NOT give full rights, but ONLY commercial rights? Or are you talking about something entirely new, a part from the “extra commercial use”
You are implying that if a gig has “commercial use” - The buyer does NOT gain full rights, but ONLY commercial rights - Which is incorrect. The buyer gets full rights (unless stated otherwise) “AND” commercial rights
Just because a gig has a “commercial rights” extra, does not mean the buyer won’t get full rights regardless.
Is is written in the Terms of Service, under commercial use license:
Gig Commercial Use License
By purchasing a “Commercial Use License” with your Gig Order, the Seller grants you a perpetual, exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide license to use the purchased delivery for Permitted Commercial Purposes. For the avoidance of doubt, the Seller retains all ownership rights. “Permitted Commercial Purposes” means any business related use, such as (by way of example) advertising, promotion, creating web pages, integration into product, software or other business related tools etc., and strictly excludes any illegal, immoral or defamatory purpose. This License is subject to Fiverr’s Terms of Service. There is no warranty, express or implied, with the purchase of this delivery, including with respect to fitness for a particular purpose. Neither the Seller nor Fiverr will be liable for any claims, or incidental, consequential or other damages arising out of this license, the delivery or your use of the delivery.
It adds to the confusion right? It is the ToS that counts.
But you end up with the problem I described in my first post.
Because the gig description is something that you can change anytime, while Order page is something that never changes. The order page (and the messages) are more legally valuable as it is fixed and defined for that particular order.
But you can change your gig description any time. The way it is written by fiverr its a total non sense.
How will you proove that your description was written like that at the time of purchase? You can only proove what is your description now, but you cannot proove since when. You cannot have a valid proof with the description. Hence the importance of the order page.
BTW why would I be in trouble if I include it in the order page?
When I read this in the TOS, which was pointed out:
*By purchasing a “Commercial Use License” with your Gig Order, the Seller grants you a perpetual, exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide license to use the purchased delivery for Permitted Commercial Purposes. For the avoidance of doubt, the Seller retains all ownership rights. “Permitted Commercial Purposes” means any business related use, such as (by way of example) advertising, promotion, creating web pages, integration into product, software or other business related tools etc., and strictly excludes any illegal, immoral or defamatory purpose. This License is subject to Fiverr’s Terms of Service. There is no warranty, express or implied, with the purchase of this delivery, including with respect to fitness for a particular purpose. Neither the Seller nor Fiverr will be liable for any claims, or incidental, consequential or other damages arising out of this license, the delivery or your use of the delivery.
It sounds like there if a Gig has “commercial use”, you can only use the work in any business related use (for example, advertising - but you should be able to resell the work as well).
But it says “The Seller retains all ownership rights”.
Having ownership of work is way way way better, than the right to use it commercially so
Question 1) Why does “Commercial use” cost more than a normal Gig? According to TOS a normal Gig gives you “All Rights” - So this makes no sense for me, can anyone explain this?
By purchasing a “Commercial Use License” on Fiverr, the seller grants you a perpetual, exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide license to use the purchased delivery for Permitted Commercial Purposes
Unless clearly stated otherwise on the seller’s Gig page/description, all intellectual property rights of the purchased delivery are hereby assigned to you.
Who Owns the Copyright?
On the Fiverr platform, buyers are granted all rights for the delivered work, unless otherwise specified by the seller on their Gig page.
And here it says buyer gets all rights.
Question 2) Isn’t this contradicting the TOS? Because here it says “unless stated otherwise, you get all property works” - which is owner rights?
Question 3) What is the best way to solve this issue? Is it to have the buy and seller agree on that “all rights will be transferred, including, but not limited to, commercial rights”? Is that a legal safe way to retain ownership of the bought property?
@audioboon - you will be in trouble if you only include it in the order page. You must let sellers know what you’re offering - clearly! - on the gig page. Otherwise it’s bait and switch, which can get you a warning - or banned!
i havn’t read beyond this message yet, but herein lies the problem; “all rights” means all rights, it means the buyer would own the work completely. whoever has all rights, also has commercial rights. if the gig doesn’t mention rights at all, and the buyer gets all rights, then the buyer effectively has commercial rights. offering full rights and charging for commercial rights would be akin to offering unlimited revisions and charging for extra revisions
however, if the buyer only has commercial rights, they do not have full right. they do not own the work, but have an open ended agreement to use it in curtain ways, which in practice means the seller also has the right to use the work and probably should be credited
fiverr tries to allow for this, and to allow sellers to charge more for full rights, but unless sellers know exactly what they are doing they run the risk of giving away full rights by accident, rendering any mention of commercial rights redundant, and this is due to what might be sloppy update work by fiverr on their TOS
Well, the best will be to copy paste this long post and send it to customer support. And make sure you tell us here what will they say, I am curious
You see, you can interpret the copyright as you like.
I see that you are buyer. And a special kind of buyer, who wants to get credit for other people’s work? Well of course it is better, for the buyer. Any seller-artist with half respect for himself and his work will never grant you “full rights”. I know I will never do that. What you are talking about is something that artists, especially musicians have fought for quite some time now.
It is a good deal to buy something for 20$ and resell it 1000 times after, right? Especially when you haven’t done anything in creating the product? Are you for real? Do you have any respect for the artist’s work? Isnt the commercial use license enough for you?
I am not helping anymore here because you clearly want to profit from other people’s work.
Actually I see what you mean, maybe I wasnt clear. Yes you must mention in the gig page that you are selling with or without commercial rights, just for the sake to make it clear for the buyer, we agree on that. When I said order page, i meant what is actually written on the completed order page, and what gets there are several things:
if it is a custom offer, you can write in the custom offer, thats easy
if it is a classic order, you may write in the requirements
in both cases, you may write messages that may cover you for alll things related to commercial use license.
That is what I meant by order page, the thing that will stay once you open the completed order.
Why are you hijacking this thread for some kind of an attack against me, when I am trying to understand the different sections of the Terms of Service?
And just so you understand, the whole idea of a “commercial use license”, is to profit from someone else’s work. That’s why the license even exists, so you can, for example, order a theme song for a video game, someone does the work, and you can reuse it and profit from it by adding it to the game which you profit from. That’s the whole idea. You might not like it, but please don’t use this forum to spread your opinions and political views on Copyright and different type of licenses. I want this to be a factual discussion, not about political opinions.
And you are clearly missing the point of my questions, which is that two sections of the website are (from what I understand) contradicting itself when it comes to “commercial use” license.
One section says the seller retains the ownership, while literally, the other section says “all property rights are assigned to you [the buyer]”.
And I actually did submit a zendesk ticket asking why not all parts of the site mentions that the seller keeps the copyright, when the Gig is labeled as “commercial use”.
To answer your direct question: “What is “Commercial Use License”? Is that the same as a Gig labels as “Commercial use”?” - Yes, it is the same.
If you find a Gig on Fiverr that has the “Commercial Use” Gig Extra on it, then you must purchase that Gig Extra in order to receive commercial use rights for the seller’s delivery. However, if you find a Gig that has no commercial use Gig Extra, and the seller’s Gig description does not state anything regarding ownership, you have full rights over everything that the seller delivers to you.
So even thought the wordings in each section / some parts of the website is strange, these are the terms.
i was in a strange petition a while back (and i made a thread about it)
i wanted a curtain logo. so, the gig i picked has three tiers of which i picked the premium. commercial rights are mentioned on the gig page thusly
and on the premium tag, the description states
but commercial use isn’t on the list with the green tick boxes, and the gig page has no gig extras. fair enough. upon ordering the premium gig, i was presented with some optional extras, which were;
social media kit, fair enough
additional revision, which is odd because it was actually set to unlimited revisions at the time. that has since been reduced to 5 but the description still says unlimited
commercial rights, which was already included in my tier anyway, and
full rights, which were more expensive
fair enough. never ordered any of those extras, and i already had a logo which i’d drawn myself, which featured characters that i’d made and that i’d used in a non commercial capacity, and i just wanted her to remake it basically. she redesigned the characters to make them allot less cartoony, but i loved it. what i didn’t like was the layout, this was meant to be a vintage logo, the characters originally looked like 1920’s cartoons characters, but this original delivery just didn’t feel vintage at all. this is something i could have easily fixed myself, but i was paying quite allot for this and i wanted to see if she could come up with something cool. so i used one of my revisions, and showed her a few edits i’d made to the sample jpegs to make them look more vintage, then sent another message with one edit that i liked quite a bit. she gave me something that was based on my last edit but wan’t as good, and was still missing a fairly important element from the original concept, description and edit, but these are easy fixes and overall i’m really happy with the result so at that point i put it into revision again just to let her know that i’m ready to accept and receive my final files
which is when things started to get a little odd…
she sent me my files along with a really nice message, and was even kind enough to send me separate transparencies for each of the characters and the wording, along with the promised source files, for my editing convenience. in eth message, she said this;
sure enough, in amongst the myriad delivered files was a PDF “licence”. a couple of things that mythed me about that licence; first of all it was for the final delivery, which is pictured on the file. i would have thought it would have been better to licence the original rejected delivery, since it would have been clearer that what she is licencing are the elements that she created, that make up the logo, as apposed to the branding itself which was always mine, which is fair enough
that’s a mute point though because this isn’t a license. i don’t think a licence is necessary to be clear, but this file is just junk, it’s completely pointless. at first i was confused, then i looked into it. what she’d done is downloaded a template for a very specific and ingeniously irrelevant situation where i would have licence to make and sell prints of the artists work, in ireland, for a limited time and under specific conditions. the template was then edited wrong so that it makes no sense, uses our user names rather then our real names, and this is the sort of contract that would need to be signed by both parties in front of witnesses, as apposed to being signed by her and sent along. if it weren’t digital, it would just be a colossal waist of three sheets of paper
i just quietly accepted the order, and left a 5 star review because otherwise this was one of the best experiences and outcomes i’ve had on fiverr, she sent me a good luck message via my inbox, and i took the opportunity to ask what exactly i would get for my $50 (on my $30 order) should i want those full rights. she responded by giving me the template, saying that if i wanted it, to let her know and she would make it up for me. this template looked much better and was just a waiver of rights, but probably wouldn’t work either
and this gives me concern because i now don’t know (nor apparently does anyone) how much of my own logo is my own, considering;
i own the characters, names and ideas, have been using them for decades and can prove so
a side effect of the weird decision to use the final design in the “licence” is that i also created the general layout. what is left for the seller to potentially own is a drawing of a squirrel, another drawing of a squirrel and maybe a font (which of course i would need in order to use this purchase for it’s intended use)
the gig page itself did and does not offer any gig extras, and rights are not mentioned outside of what i’ve posted, and were only mentioned in the order with the final delivery
most frustratingly, what licence and full rights apparently means in this case is that i get a document which makes no sense and that is obviously null and void. so why would i spend $50, almost twice as much as i spent on the gig, for that?
so i feel that i own the whole thing, and at best, the seller probably feels that she has the rights to resell those assets with full rights, then who owns what? at worst she might think she owns pip ‘n’ ski now. based on that strange document, i don’t know what her understanding of intellectual property is if she has one
i don’t mind about having commercial rights and having to pay $50 for intellectual property (on what i don’t already own), but i do require clarity on whether i can use the logo that i paid money for, preferably before i pay
I have nothing against you, I don’t even know who you are. But I have a thing or two to say about what you are writing and your way of thinking.
Highjacking copyright threads is my hobby.
You are not just trying to understand the contradictions, you are writing about whats better or worse. And whats “better” for you it is not better for the sellers. And whats even worse you are trying to find a way to get full ownership rights from sellers:
You want to hear a political opinion: sellers should be better protected when it comes to “full rights transfer”. Fiverr took a big step in that direction by stating For the avoidance of doubt, the Seller retains all ownership rights in the ToS. This is recent. Its a good thing that they have added that sentance in the Tos.
I realized that trying to explain stuff and ways to improve the things for sellers, I was actually opeining a door and helping buyers like you to find a way and get away with the “holes” in the system and seek full ownership rights. That got me started. And yes, I am against that.
OK, so this confirms all my doubts that I wrote in my previous posts and threads on copyright: SELLERS, ALWAYS INCLUDE COMMERCIAL USE LICENSE WITH YOUR DELIVERIES. Even a free commercial use license is better than not mentioning a commercial use license at all. And @donatia you can sue me for politacal propaganda with this statement, be my guest.
What are you even on about? You are trying to shove down your own political views about Copyright on others. Both the Buyer and the Seller needs to understand and be protected.
You seem totally oblivious to the fact there are “ghost content creators” in almost industries. Ghost authors that write books for others, Ghost producers that write music for Calvin Harris and Armin Van Buuren.
Content creators that are totally happy to give up their rights of their work for compensation.
One mention about “full rights being given up” and you start a crusade, without knowing anything about the terms or how the original content creator will be compensated to give up copyright. Sometimes, “commercial license” is not enough for certain commercial projects to happen.
But for some reason, you feel like everyone should share the same view as you, and if they don’t, you have to police about it to others.
If both the buyer and seller are in total agreement how the content will be used and a transfer of Copyright is okay for the agreed upon compensation - then just leave it be.
You don’t need to be a hard core Copyright justice warrior.