Avoid withoutabox.com (WAB) - you must read this thread!

I

IndiePaul

Have a look at term 11 of the WAB Terms of Service:

https://www.withoutabox.com/index.php?cmd=register.index

You grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license right to use, copy, reproduce, transmit, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display any information, data, Work, or any other information associated with your Work (collectively the “Submitted Materials”) you submit to us via the Services in any media or format.
Click to expand...
:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

How the hell can then get away with such a clause?

So you upload a screenplay or short/feature to WAB and it grants them "nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, and fully sublicensable license right to use, copy, reproduce, transmit, modify, adapt, publish, translate," etc over YOUR WORK...

I'm stunned...

I was alerted to this thanks to these folks:

http://withoutaboxsucks.com/

Thanks is due to our member Flicker Pictures, who posted the link on this IT thread.
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
Zensteve said:
Who owns WAB, anyone know?
Click to expand...
Well, lets follow the rabbit hole.. (It's not terribly deep)

Domain Name: withoutabox.com
Registrant Name: IMDb Hostmaster
Registrant Organization: IMDb.com, Inc.
Registrant Street: Legal Dept, PO Box 81226,
Registrant City: Seattle
Registrant State/Province: WA
Registrant Postal Code: 98108
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: +1.2062664064
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: +1.2062667010
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: hostmaster@imdb.com


and who owns IMDB?

12552778864_e7ae19e00a_o.jpg


Amazon.. Amazon owns IMDB, and thus also owns Without a box
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
This doesn't bother me because I would never upload my film to withoutabox because their online screener quality is complete crap. Much better off submitting a Blu-ray (or DVD if I have to) or better yet, a Vimeo link if the festival allows.

The only thing that goes up in my withoutabox account is my film's synopsis and screenshots. If they want to use those for any reason, all the more press for me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This is actually a pretty standard boilerplate clause for nearly any website that allows you to upload content. It's not necessarily that they're being shady - they're covering their ass in case some one tries to sue them. You'll likely find the exact same wording with YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, Vimeo, Twitter - you name it, they'll have it. It's basically something you're going to have to accept unless you want to host content yourself.

And if your think you can avoid this with festivals by submitting outside of WAB, you might want to read the entry forms carefully - most festivals will have a similar clause in regards to films submitted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
This is actually a pretty standard boilerplate clause for nearly any website that allows you to upload content. It's not necessarily that they're being shady - they're covering their ass in case some one tries to sue them. You'll likely find the exact same wording with YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, Vimeo, Twitter - you name it, they'll have it. It's basically something you're going to have to accept unless you want to host content yourself.
Click to expand...

I virtually always agree with you ItDonnedOnMe. But on this, I have to disagree.

The WAB clause is crazy in relation to the powers it gives WAB over your uploaded work.

I had a look at the Youtube terms of service, did not see a similar clause:

Youtube TOS
http://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

The vimeo TOS does have a clause granting them some power but it's hugely more limited then the WAB TOS. The Vimeo clause requests limited power- it's also limited in scope, ie the purpose the power can be used in - hence the purpose i, ii, iii, iv they state. The vimeo clause is mostly so they can, if they want, use your work (if set to public) to market and publicize vimeo.

The WAB clause has no such limitations or limitations in scope/purpose.

The WAB clause basically allows Amazon/WAB to use your work, change it in any way they see fit, and market it, publish it and sell it without having to pay you a cent... They can do whatever they way - no limitations. It's crazy...

Vimeo TOS
https://vimeo.com/terms

The vimeo clause...
By submitting a video, you grant Vimeo and its affiliates a limited, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license and right to copy, transmit, distribute, publicly perform and display (through all media now known or hereafter created), and make derivative works from your video for the purpose of (i) displaying the video within the Vimeo Service; (ii) displaying the video on third party websites and applications through a video embed or Vimeo's API subject to your video privacy choices; (iii) allowing other users to play, download, and embed on third party websites the video, subject to your video privacy choices; (iii) promoting the Vimeo Service, provided that you have made the video publicly available; and (iv) archiving or preserving the video for disputes, legal proceedings, or investigations.
Click to expand...

ItDonnedOnMe said:
And if your think you can avoid this with festivals by submitting outside of WAB, you might want to read the entry forms carefully - most festivals will have a similar clause in regards to films submitted.
Click to expand...
I have. Personally, I have not come across such a wide-granting-power as the WAB one. It would be madness for a Hollywood studio to submit a movie to any festival that granted itself such powers over content they have paid millions to make.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
ItDonnedOnMe said:
This is actually a pretty standard boilerplate clause for nearly any website that allows you to upload content. It's not necessarily that they're being shady - they're covering their ass in case some one tries to sue them. You'll likely find the exact same wording with YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, Vimeo, Twitter - you name it, they'll have it. It's basically something you're going to have to accept unless you want to host content yourself.

And if your think you can avoid this with festivals by submitting outside of WAB, you might want to read the entry forms carefully - most festivals will have a similar clause in regards to films submitted.
Click to expand...

This is probably true, but at the end of the day WAB still sucks, and every festival knows it. But the festivals that tried to rebel a few years ago noticed a sharp decline in the number of submissions so they went back to it. And even if you ignore all the bad things you hear about WAB behind the scenes, the interface is also garbage. Someone needs to break their monopoly on that market because healthy competition is the only way these companies invest money to improve.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Will Vincent said:
So... lets build a better one. I'm a web developer. :)
Click to expand...
The folks here:

http://withoutaboxsucks.com/

...say WAB filed a parent (which was granted) regarding their service so if someone else tries to compete with them (ie a web-based festival directory, listing, search and submission service for film festivals) it would be in breach of their patent and they could and would sue.

The Amazon billions and legal team at work...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
IndiePaul said:
The folks here:

http://withoutaboxsucks.com/

...say WAB filed a parent (which was granted) regarding their service so if someone else tries to compete with them (ie a web-based festival directory, listing, search and submission service for film festivals) it would be in breach of their patent and they could and would sue.

The Amazon billions and legal team at work...
Click to expand...

I read the section you're referring to, and that's not what I took away from it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Will Vincent said:
I read the section you're referring to, and that's not what I took away from it.
Click to expand...
Hi Will, the WAB patent is better detailed here:

http://stephenfollows.com/withoutaboxs-dirty-secret/

Scroll down to the 'What is US6829612?' section.

Ok, enough context. What is it that made Withoutbox so valuable to Amazon, that results in such poor service and which has prevented any rival appearing?

It’s a patent. In 2001 Withoutabox was granted the monopoly on using the internet to administer film festival submissions. US patent US6829612 is described as such:

Withoutabox patent:

"Internet-based film festival digital entry and back office services suite model. A new computerized methods using a database system on a global network to administer film festivals. The methods include the filmmakers inputting film information into the database, which information becomes available to selected film festivals. The system preferably handles multiple submissions to different festivals, processes applications, provides simultaneous judging of a competition, and schedules film play times at the festivals."

This means that if anyone tries to set up a rival to Withoutabox they will have to contend with the full force of Amazon’s lawyers and deep pockets.

In the process of conducting my film festival survey I was approached by no less that four groups of people who were considering creating a WAB-killer. One of them had some big names attached and were it not for patent US6829612 I think they would have really shaken up the film festival world. Competition in the submission market could drive down fees, provide a credible alternative for free-to-enter festivals and force WAB to improve their site. But US6829612 prevents this. Shame.
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top