Aviary Terms of Use [Aviary.com]
]]>I think Aviary does it a little in a more user-friendly fashion (each bullet point is next to the paragraph it references), but the general purpose is the same. It really makes clear who's side they're on, and what their goals really are.
]]>"We love you, but signing this agreement doesn't make us legal partners."
]]>I don't know why they need the legalese. The summary seems comprehensive enough.
]]>This whole area is a mess with some pretty contradictory rulings (depending on state) according to my lawyer.
The fear of the EULA being summarily dismissed is why software companies were/are pushing so hard for UCITA.
]]>Now this is a business that has confidence in the product they are peddling.
]]>That site is amazing. The TOS is great, but I mean the site itself. It's been bookmarked. I keep staring at the header image. So prettty.
I'm kind of loopy. I need coffee lol.
]]>See that other companies? See how positive consumer advocacy can work in your favor?
]]>I was inspired by a moderator at WebmasterWorld.com, (username Jensense), who used to update the forums every time Google made a change to it's Adsense Terms of Service. As part of her update she would do a summary of each paragraph in plain English.
That service was invaluable to understanding what the agreement changes really meant and that left a mark on me. Credit is really due her.
Aviary's mission is to make creation accessible to the world - even those that can't afford digital software. It doesn't make sense in light of our mission to make understanding the legal ramifications of using our tools inaccessible to anyone without a law degree.
Anyways, I'm flattered that you guys thought enough of this to mention it. I agree, more companies should be doing it and I'm sure they'd have tighter relationships with their userbase as a result.
]]>While this is a nice summary, it shouldn't absolve people from taking the responsibility to read the actual agreement.
]]>One of the big reasons legalese exists is that lawyers are magpies who take bits of other people's contracts that they know work properly. It's slow work to create a provision from scratch using your own words instead of stock phrases. (I actually have a lovely set of five fat books full of stock phrases for contracts in Illinois. Terrifically useful.)
When I write wills, I try to do it without technical legal terms and without twisty legal sentences. There are only two unusual legal terms I've found myself unable to jettison ("ademption" and "per stirpes") and those are easy enough to explain to clients. Occasionally a client is disappointed, though, because they're paying for the fancy lawyer-talk and don't want this plain English crap. :)
]]>A cute way of putting it....
]]>I think this is easy to do with a website and well-nigh-impossible to do with most EULAs, contractual agreements, terms of service, etc. Most lawyers would develop a fear that a court would interpret the clarifying points as the true legal language of the contract. There is a reason "legalese" exists, after all, and it's not just so lawyers pull salary.
]]>:P
]]>It seems that those Terms of Use are pretty much recycled these days, without much change from one website to the next. I like how they've got a general "not-evil" vibe going, from reasonable timelines for notification of price increases, to a lack of a "this can change at any time without notice" policy.
]]>"Don't be a jerk." Every site and business needs this clause.
]]>"We arent' responsible if your internet access provider isn't working. :)"
In the words of Bill Engvall, here's your sign.
]]>