Quote:
Originally Posted by MaDalton
So if you licensed to Playboy - at that time a public company - and Hugh bought all his shares back - he has to re-license the content that Playboy bought?
|
Magazines often understood this better than the online guys. So the answer is yes and he wouldn't have a problem with it.
It's a license and licenses often have clauses in them which both parties are expected to abide by.
You seem to be of the POV that the license clauses can be ignored. At the moment Adultking is fighting a huge battle with people who are ignoring the license the content was first issued under. Is he wrong in that fight or should a license be ignored?
When people come to me and ask about a new license. I'm very easy to deal with. I just issue one and if it's an easy job let it go. If it requires me to put in work, I do so. If on the other hand I find someone who has bought a site full of non exclusive content and done nothing to inform the owners of the content I take a dim view. Especially when it's someone who seems to be against other people not sticking to the license they viewed the content under.
When that guy hasn't got a clue which scene was from which content provider and needs me to go through everything to verify what he has or doesn't of mine. His 2257 page was a page of content providers, some in the US some in the EU and Russia, some in business some gone out of business and probably some false addresses.
Clearly not bothering what other peoples content he has and whether it was license or not. Or if the original purchase was by a company or a person. And the notice I got that the site had changed hands, comes from a lawyer defending someone for supposedly downloading child porn. I take an even more dim view.
Still we reached an agreement and issued a new license for a sum we agreed on.
Ask Shap to verify this.
Yes even the best don't bother with little things like licenses or even finding out what they're buying.