I would appreciate at least some initial thoughts from the management.
For instance:
Does the management like the idea of an OPT IN-OUT button for this specific usecase? Just put a button on the dashboard, and copyright sensitive projects can opt-out if needed. See idea above.
Does the management understand that many projects (=clients) have to be removed from Webflow once the client really understand implications? For example, any project that relies on third party licensed assets, or relies on the work of a third party contractor has to be removed.
CONSIDER THESE:
Just think about actors, photographers who work for a client. Those contractors did NOT allow you to use their work for Webflow’s commercials. Yes, a commercial can be just an innocent Facebook post, but it can be an international TV ad during the Olympics.
Think about any project that relies on licensed photos from major Stock Photography Website. When I purchase a license from Adobe or Getty Images, they did NOT allow a third party to use these assets for commercial purposes.
I don’t like that with such a serious matter, the senior management is not involved in the conversation. They should at least respond with some initial thoughts, even if that is not a final legal statement.
Currently we are just waiting, with no understanding how the management sees this problem. So I don’t know if I should start the process of removing the project from Webflow, or most likely there will be some positive change? I would appreciate if someone would at least acknowledge that they made mistakes regarding this new T&C.
Hi everyone, thank you for sharing your concerns and your patience while we worked through this with the team.
I have an update in regards to our Terms of Service. After chatting with the team, it’s clear that we need to revisit and simplify the terms surrounding what we can and cannot share on behalf of you and your clients.
While our team revisits our TOS to make the process even more clear, I want to call out a few things:
This section was put in place so that Webflow could more easily promote the work being done on the platform in channels like Webflow Inspo or the website.
I can assure you that we would never commercialize the work or assets uploaded onto the site for our own gain, i.e. claim work uploaded by a photographer on their site.
Lastly — for anyone who is concerned about their work being featured, or who would like to ensure we do not promote or share the logos or content of any of your clients, you can reach out to contact@webflow.com.
I understand the concerns when reading this section, and have brought them back to the team. We’ll be working with them to ensure that the language is adjusted and a clear opt-out will be included in-line versus further down in the Terms of Service.
Again, thank you for bringing this up — it’s incredibly important that you and your clients feel safe and excited to build on Webflow, and that includes fully understanding what processes are in place and how their data is protected.
Thanks for the response. It’s seems we’ll have a good solution that will work for everyone.
I like that opt-out is being considered, and I like that you will clarify what exactly you can do with someone’s project under the term “Promotional Activities”.
What freaked me out - I think quite rightly - is that Webflow’s “Promotional activities” was not specified. It was way too vague. There is a big difference between appearing on Webflow’s “inspirations” page, vs. appearing on CNN in a Webflow TV ad. Most people would accept the first scenario, but not the second.
If you don’t mind, I have a recommendation:
Be as specific as possible when you re-write the T&C. Go into a client’s head, and imagine what uncertainties he/she will have with those rights that you just grant to Webflow. You can write a much better T&C if you also focus on the client’s perspective, not just Webflow’s goals.
When you do this exercise, just imagine a few made-up scenarios:
Imagine some easy scenarios, like a local plumber’s website
Imagine a mid. complexity page that relies on Adobe and/or Creative Commons assets.
But also practice with an extreme case. For instance, imagine an entertainment company who wants to build a Webflow site for their upcoming theatrical performance. They have music uploaded to Webflow written specifically for them by a living composer, performed by musicians who are sub-contractors. The costumes are unique designs (maybe trademarked), made by a third-party company. They also have video footages from the musical, featuring the actors and they also photographs taken by a hired photographer. And on top, they use Adobe licensed photographs to make the website nicer.
when I was reading a new terms when I got notification I was shocked but I rather didn’t comment on it and only said “thats it”. But most people would not read it.
Thanks Istvan, your example scenarios are excellent. And thanks too to @matthewpmunger for your replies. Webflow’s lawyers (they must have them, considering their $100’s of milliions of dollars of VC funding — which they deserve, by the way!) must already be conversant in this language and understanding of usage creep in a contract. I imagine that any lawyer would not make such vague terms in a contract if it was concerning outsider’s use of WEBFLOW’S intellectual property. Imagine if we wanted to use Webflow’s cool training videos for our own marketing or licensing? The opt-in approach seems most respectable, and less fraught with legal friction (speaking as a non-lwayer).
Any follow up? I too have been working over a year with a client and this could be a huge deal breaker. Please let us know asap, I can’t imagine having to start over elsewhere but, if necessary, the sooner the better.
Thank you
Hello @matthewpmunger ,
Has there been an update on this? I am getting ready to launch my own website in webflow , and webflow was going to be my builder for client sites as well. I need to know if I should be focusing on another tool.
Update on this? This change makes Webflow garbage. Would suck if a very well followed developer in several communities made this a big deal and well known.
@ChrisT - Because the assets CDN domain is the same for all users. No branding is possible and you can’t pull an asset by deleting it. Nor can you restrict access based on referrer. Something that is easily done on other platforms and CDN’s.
Can we please get an official response from someone in the management regarding this problem? I find it disturbing how your members of staff decided to “ghost” this topic, hoping it will go away.
I ask others to like / comment if they agree that this thread needs attention from the management.
Thanks!
Webflow’s support has been terrible as of late. It is extremely disappointing to see the direction that they are going. I think it is just time to bite the bullet and move on to another platform. I have been building websites with them since their inception, but this among many other things is just another sign that the company is not going to get better, but worse as time goes on. Oh well, there are other products worth giving a try.
Hi there, I can confidently say that we have not ghosted the topic and apologies for the delayed response from the team
For clarity - these terms are in place so that content can be promoted on features like Made in Webflow (if published) or for logomark rights for our large clients. In most cases outside of Made in Webflow, our team would reach out in advance to ensure that people would be happy/comfortable with the promotion.
Since we spoke, there has been updates to ensure that everyone can see that there is a clear path for all users to revoke any rights to anything they publish by contacting us.
In addition, I want to make it clear that if any client of yours have materials that they want to make sure we can never promote, access etc. that they can remove our rights by emailing contact@webflow.com.
In what cases would that not happen? Please be very specific.
Why is Webflow defaulting to granting itself rights and putting the burden on us and our clients to maintain the rights we have as copyright holders instead of seeking permissions itself?
I cancelled multiple projects while waiting for WF to respond here. I simply don’t understand why it has taken so long to clarify your legal position.
