Facebook's terms for its Patreon-like "Fan Subscriptions" feature include taking up to 30% of revenue, offering free trial subscriptions, and a perpetual license to all content
As near as I can tell this seems more like Facebook is trying to offer a publishing platform rather than a Patreon like donation-with-exclusives platform, but the lines are a little blurred. Its...
As near as I can tell this seems more like Facebook is trying to offer a publishing platform rather than a Patreon like donation-with-exclusives platform, but the lines are a little blurred. Its royalty model certainly seems more in line with being a publisher: Facebook taking 30% is comparable to self-publishing on Amazon or Steam (both typically take around 30%) as well as the 30%–50% taken by YouTube and Twitch mentioned in the article.
The headline buries the lede though which is that publishing on Facebook gives them "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use" your content in perpetuity, even if you take your content off their platform. Facebook claims they won't exercise those full rights (and they give weak justification for why they demand them) but that promise is worth nothing. The only rights you have and the only rights you should expect are those specified in the terms you agree to. As it stands I can't imagine any creator putting content they care about on Facebook or treating the platform as anything more than an afterthought.
That is so far off of reasonable that it's amusing rather than shocking. While they're still an enormous platform, the lack of consideration for the creators and willingness to change the...
That is so far off of reasonable that it's amusing rather than shocking. While they're still an enormous platform, the lack of consideration for the creators and willingness to change the landscape without warning makes Facebook a dangerous platform to depend upon.
As near as I can tell this seems more like Facebook is trying to offer a publishing platform rather than a Patreon like donation-with-exclusives platform, but the lines are a little blurred. Its royalty model certainly seems more in line with being a publisher: Facebook taking 30% is comparable to self-publishing on Amazon or Steam (both typically take around 30%) as well as the 30%–50% taken by YouTube and Twitch mentioned in the article.
The headline buries the lede though which is that publishing on Facebook gives them "non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use" your content in perpetuity, even if you take your content off their platform. Facebook claims they won't exercise those full rights (and they give weak justification for why they demand them) but that promise is worth nothing. The only rights you have and the only rights you should expect are those specified in the terms you agree to. As it stands I can't imagine any creator putting content they care about on Facebook or treating the platform as anything more than an afterthought.
That is so far off of reasonable that it's amusing rather than shocking. While they're still an enormous platform, the lack of consideration for the creators and willingness to change the landscape without warning makes Facebook a dangerous platform to depend upon.