> As far as an alternative to Fuji's approach, it's not that hard to find: > <http://www.printroom.com/faq.asp?bm=term#termsserv> > Grant of Limited License to Printroom.com > Users grant Printroom.com a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, > perpetual license, with the right to reproduce, distribute, transmit, > publicly display any materials and other information you submit to > the service (the "Submitted Materials") for the purposes of (i) > display on their sites and (ii) production of personalized photo > finished products or reprints ordered by members or their guests. > Printroom.com disclaims ownership of "Submitted Materials" and will > not resell or otherwise convey these rights to any third party. Alan Thanks for searching that out: I knew there were examples around but didn't have time to look. I'm frankly astonished that anyone here is defending the terms used on Fuji's site. Caveat emptor (for a service Fuji declare as "free"?) may well apply but .... The customer does not always have a choice. We can't all run our own servers any more than we can't all write our own computer operating systems if we get cheesed off with Microsoft's bully tactics. Bob Reading this message grants Qkano plc the non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license, with the right to reproduce, distribute, transmit, sell, sub-licence, copy publicly display any materials and other images you have ever produced.
