Discussion:
What is the name of your state? Yamaguchi-ken (I live in Japan, I am writing about some business with an American company)
Recently I needed a picture of a dancer for my non-commercial web site. I ended up at a certain large image selling site and noticed that some of the images contained the words "Royalty Free."
I am aware of the meaning of this term now. My question is not about the meaning of this term.
On the left of the screen was the image saying "Royality Free" and to the right was a selection of buttons saying "Download 1MB Image $69."
I assumed, that "Royalty Free" means just as the term implies, free of royalties, that royalties are not required, as in "sugar free."
I clicked on the image, downloaded it and used it on my website.
A month later I got a message from said company thanking them for joining their website.
I wrote back saying "on the contrary thank you for supply this wonderful resource". I added, "By the way, would you like me to quote, quote and link, or credit both you and the agency and link?" (I was puzzled at the time I downloaded that I could not find any requirements to link to their site. I had perused their terms and conditions.).
Within a hour I recieve a phone call demanding that I pay $69 for the use of the image I had downloaded. After an initial period of astonishment, I paid.
However, it seems to me that the usual use of the word "Royalty" is to mean the payment for copyright or patented things.
So the phrase "Royalty Free" in normal (i.e. non-legal) English means that the photograph is free. However, I am aware that in legalese, using a rare use of the meaning of "royalty" (the juristiction over something, basically the same meaning as copyright) the term can mean "free to use as you wish once you have paid for it."
It seems to me that IF I am right about the normal (non legal) meaning of the phrase to mean, "This is free of royalty payments," then the business practice of this company, making no mention of the special meaning of the term in their Terms and Conditions, is not giving customers a warning that they are about to enter into a contract. On the contrary it seems to be creating the impression in "buyers" minds that they are not required to pay.
As far as I am aware, in contract law, it is a requirement that those selling things give buyers adequate information that they are making a purchase. Here where I live there are bars that encourage customers to enter their establishment and then ask them to pay large amounts of money for the service they have recieved. I understand that this latter practice is not legal since the law, in the country I am living in (Japan) and the country of my birth (the UK) requires that sellers let would-be-clients know, to a fair and reasonable degree, that they are entering into a contract and what that contract implies.
Was I given that information?
It seems to me now that I posted this on the wrong section of this site. Anyone versed in copyright law will be aware of the legal meaning of "Royalty Free" and might well be expected to point out its legal meaning. That is not the issue.
The issue is one of contract law, or advertising standards, or consumer law.
In the most part legal jargon is in tune with common English. In this case, however, it seems that the legal jargon is, although proper legal jargon, in contradiction to common English use. Hence, when speaking to people about their contractual obligations, this company uses legal jargon which is in direct contradiction to the use normally given these terms.
I searched on the internet for related topics and I could find none. This leads me to think that perhaps my English is getting rusty, and that English speakers are aware that "Royalty Free" means that one has to pay. I find this very surprising.
Sncerely
Timothy Takemoto
Answer:
Royalty free means you don't pay for each use of the item. You still have to buy the item for $69 then you can use it all you want. You have misinterpreted the meaning of "royalty free". It does not mean it is free of cost.
Answer:
I agree with racer72, so please pay in US funds. Domo arigato.
Answer:
Timothy, it is important that you understand the legal term 'royalty' as it applies to copyright law.
royalty
n. a percentage of gross or net profit or a fixed amount per sale to which a creator of a work is entitled which is determined by contract between the creator and the manufacturer, publisher, agent and/or distributor. Inventors, authors, movie makers, scriptwriters, music composers, musicians and other creators contract with the manufacturers, publishers, movie production companies and distributors, as well as producers and distributors for a license to manufacture and/or sell the product, who pay a royalty to the creator based on a percentage of funds received.
Simply, you paid $69 to use someone elses copyrighted property as a ONE-TIME fee. This purchase included your right to use this property as many times as you wanted, without incurring further fees. If there was a royalty obligation, then you would have had to pay for EACH additional time the property was used.
Example:
Lets say that you own a copyright on a software program and wish to market it to others. By the nature of the program, you feel that it would generate more profit to you if you retain royalty rights. So, you sell the program to your customer for a small amount of money (far less than it would normally cost), with a 'royalty clause'. In the program, you include a counter that tracks the number of times that the program is used, and you bill your customer on his/her usage.
That situation is very similar to your case.... you purchased the property 'royalty free', meaning you have no further costs for YOUR usage.
In answer to your question ("Was I given that information?"), the answer is yes.
BTW, your use of the English language is commendable. As you may have noticed on this forum, there are many writers who lack that ability.
Arrigato Gozaimasu
Answer:
I once lived in a castle and killed the king and queen. From that day forward I was royalty free.
Answer:
Dear HomeGuru and racer72,
First off, I am not Japanese. I am a British National, resident in Japan, and my first language is English.
Part of the problem may be that I am a speaker of English. I am aware that Royalty often refers to the payment of funds for the use of a patent or copyright material.
Secondly I am sorry that I did not make it clear in my post that I am now aware of the legal meaning of "Royalty Free."
My point was that this legal meaning of "Royalty Free" is in contradiction to the normal meaning of the same term (at least as far as I am aware.) and consequently, when a seller informs a client that something is "Royality Free," it seems to me that they should assume that the client will understand that term in the normal (i.e. non legal) way it is used.
This being the case, by using the correct LEGAL term, they have not given the client the information to enable that client to make the judgement that they have entered a contractual agreement.
The company in question was VERY clear in legal terms. But it seems to me that they were very unclear, vis a vis normal English, at the same time.
I could perform a concordance search on the use of the term "royalty." My guess is that in most uses of the word in common speach (prior at least to the arrival of internet sites like the one in question) refer to the payment of charges for the use of said material.
Timothy
Answer:
God Save us from Mad Dogs and Englishmen....
Answer:
Originally posted by timtak
Dear HomeGuru and racer72,
First off, I am not Japanese. I am a British National, resident in Japan, and my first language is English.
Part of the problem may be that I am a speaker of English. I am aware that Royalty often refers to the payment of funds for the use of a patent or copyright material.
Secondly I am sorry that I did not make it clear in my post that I am now aware of the legal meaning of "Royalty Free."
My point was that this legal meaning of "Royalty Free" is in contradiction to the normal meaning of the same term (at least as far as I am aware.) and consequently, when a seller informs a client that something is "Royality Free," it seems to me that they should assume that the client will understand that term in the normal (i.e. non legal) way it is used.
This being the case, by using the correct LEGAL term, they have not given the client the information to enable that client to make the judgement that they have entered a contractual agreement.
The company in question was VERY clear in legal terms. But it seems to me that they were very unclear, vis a vis normal English, at the same time.
I could perform a concordance search on the use of the term "royalty." My guess is that in most uses of the word in common speach (prior at least to the arrival of internet sites like the one in question) refer to the payment of charges for the use of said material.
Timothy **A: nothing in your post changes the fact that by downloading the image, you agreed to pay for the image. There was no language on the website that stated that the image and use of such image was free. The mere fact of the $69 charge would have been a clue to you. Pay up.
Answer:
Dear Jetz
I am really loosing confidence in my use of the English language.
BUT I want to STRESS that I know how the term is used in contract law (NOW).
I wish to suggest however that this is not the way in which the term is used in common speech in the UK (this is where I come from).
The word "royalty" in common English speach refers. as far as I was aware, to the amount of money that a user pays to a copyright/patent holder.
"Do I have to pay a royality to use this?" Seems to me to be a very normal question with a normal answer in common english. The answer is YES if it costs money and NO if it does not cost money.
Here is the definition given at the Cambridge online dictionary of English.
royalty [Show phonetics]
noun [C usually plural]
a payment made to writers, people who have invented things, owners of property, etc. every time their books, devices, land, etc. are bought or used by others
See also royalty at royal.
This definition above is one which I was aware, and seemed to me to be self-evident. Nothing complex at all. A royalty is something that one pays to to people that own things when you buy their stuff.
The definition you kindly supply is one with which I was not familar (limited as it is to a relationship between owners and vectors such as agents/distributors). I thought (NOTE THE PAST TENSE HERE) that a royalty was something that one payed to an owner when you use his stuff.
Now... in order for me to have been given the required information for me to know that I was entering into the contract, the seller should provide adequate information to that end.
Should I have known this limited meaning of the word "royalty" defined as between owners of copyright and distributors? I know it now, but it still strikes me as being one which is a NON-standard usage. In my, what I considered to be common English, royalty payments are payed when when one does not distribute at all.
Perhaps this is a problem between American and British English? Perhaps (and I do mean perhaps) in the US Royalty is commonly known to apply to agents who resell works, whereas perhaps in the UK royalty is commonly assumed to be a payment to usesomeones stuff.
It was not a complex word for me. I realise NOW that other people use this, what was to me a simple, word in very different ways.
Was the company reasonable to assume that I would undestand their usage of the term? I know thier usage was correct. But, I repeat, the important question is whether the could reasonably assume that I would understand them.
As far as I am aware, in consumer/contract law the onus is upon the seller to convey this message in a way which potential buyers can "reasonably" understand.
Tim
Answer:
[quote]Originally posted by timtak
[b]Dear Jetz
**A: the name is JETX; there is no Z in Z name.
***********
I am really loosing confidence in my use of the English language.
**A: yeah especially when you use the word loosing rahter than losing.
*********
BUT I want to STRESS that I know how the term is used in contract law (NOW).
I wish to suggest however that this is not the way in which the term is used in common speech in the UK (this is where I come from).
**A: so what. Speech in the UK is not the subject.
********
The word "royalty" in common English speach refers. as far as I was aware, to the amount of money that a user pays to a copyright/patent holder.
"Do I have to pay a royality to use this?" Seems to me to be a very normal question with a normal answer in common english. The answer is YES if it costs money and NO if it does not cost money.
Here is the definition given at the Cambridge online dictionary of English.
royalty [Show phonetics]
noun [C usually plural]
a payment made to writers, people who have invented things, owners of property, etc. every time their books, devices, land, etc. are bought or used by others
See also royalty at royal.
This definition above is one which I was aware, and seemed to me to be self-evident. Nothing complex at all. A royalty is something that one pays to to people that own things when you buy their stuff.
The definition you kindly supply is one with which I was not familar (limited as it is to a relationship between owners and vectors such as agents/distributors). I thought (NOTE THE PAST TENSE HERE) that a royalty was something that one payed to an owner when you use his stuff.
Now... in order for me to have been given the required information for me to know that I was entering into the contract, the seller should provide adequate information to that end.
Should I have known this limited meaning of the word "royalty" defined as between owners of copyright and distributors? I know it now, but it still strikes me as being one which is a NON-standard usage. In my, what I considered to be common English, royalty payments are payed when when one does not distribute at all.
Perhaps this is a problem between American and British English? Perhaps (and I do mean perhaps) in the US Royalty is commonly known to apply to agents who resell works, whereas perhaps in the UK royalty is commonly assumed to be a payment to usesomeones stuff.
It was not a complex word for me. I realise NOW that other people use this, what was to me a simple, word in very different ways.
**A: boring non-relevant diatribe.
********
Was the company reasonable to assume that I would undestand their usage of the term?
**A: yes and the company was not wrong.
*****
I know thier usage was correct. But, I repeat, the important question is whether the could reasonably assume that I would understand them.
**A: it is clear to a 5th grader that there would be a $69 charge to download.
*******
As far as I am aware, in consumer/contract law the onus is upon the seller to convey this message in a way which potential buyers can "reasonably" understand.
Tim
**A: and what don't you understand. You downloaded the image and are liable for payment of the $69 as it is clearly stated on the website.
Answer:
Dear HomeGuru,
Thank you for your post. I have already paid for the image! Very expensive it was too.
> A: nothing in your post changes the fact that by
> downloading the image, you agreed to pay for the image.
How so? (This relates to the next bit, please read on)
> There was no language on the website that stated that the
> image and use of such image was free.
This is where we disagree. As far as I am aware the word "Royalty" refers to the payment made by users to owners every time they use their product. When they said that their product was "Royalty free" I presumed, that the payment made by user (me) to owner (them) every time (including this time) they use their products was absent, waived, or zero.
I was inventing a definition of the word "royalty," but merely understanding it as per a normal (in my mind) dictionary definition.
> The mere fact of the $69 charge would have been a clue to you.
I was surprised, that that on the one had the 89KB image should be free of such charges while the 1MB image was $69, but given the clarity which which the image there displayed was described as having no royalty fee, I presumed that the difference existed in the fact that commericial printed uses would require a higher resolution.
As a business model (give away to those that want something low quality, charge for commercial level quality) it sounds quite normal. A lot open source and free software operates on a similar principle. If you want the extra features of the "Pro" model, you have to pay, but the basic model is free. That is what I thought that this site was offering.
To be honest though I was thinking "Great website! I will be coming there again!" Because I was a little surprised that they would be giving away even small images without requiring a royalty.
Hmm... Perhaps my English is too good!!! HAH, conceited twat!?
(I refer to myself of course.).
But seriously, it seems that other people have forgotten the (till-recently-normal) meaning of royalty and think that it only refers to things that are multiple or distributed by others.
Has this meaning of royalty taken over. Does everyone understand?
Am I the only person to understand this word in this way?
Tim
Answer:
[quote]Originally posted by timtak
[b]Dear HomeGuru,
Thank you for your post. I have already paid for the image! Very expensive it was too.
> A: nothing in your post changes the fact that by
> downloading the image, you agreed to pay for the image.
How so? (This relates to the next bit, please read on)
> There was no language on the website that stated that the
> image and use of such image was free.
This is where we disagree. As far as I am aware the word "Royalty" refers to the payment made by users to owners every time they use their product. When they said that their product was "Royalty free" I presumed, that the payment made by user (me) to owner (them) every time (including this time) they use their products was absent, waived, or zero.
I was inventing a definition of the word "royalty," but merely understanding it as per a normal (in my mind) dictionary definition.
> The mere fact of the $69 charge would have been a clue to you.
I was surprised, that that on the one had the 89KB image should be free of such charges while the 1MB image was $69, but given the clarity which which the image there displayed was described as having no royalty fee, I presumed that the difference existed in the fact that commericial printed uses would require a higher resolution.
As a business model (give away to those that want something low quality, charge for commercial level quality) it sounds quite normal. A lot open source and free software operates on a similar principle. If you want the extra features of the "Pro" model, you have to pay, but the basic model is free. That is what I thought that this site was offering.
To be honest though I was thinking "Great website! I will be coming there again!" Because I was a little surprised that they would be giving away even small images without requiring a royalty.
Hmm... Perhaps my English is too good!!! HAH, conceited twat!?
(I refer to myself of course.).
But seriously, it seems that other people have forgotten the (till-recently-normal) meaning of royalty and think that it only refers to things that are multiple or distributed by others.
Has this meaning of royalty taken over. Does everyone understand?
**A: no.
********
Am I the only person to understand this word in this way?
**A: no
*******
Tim
**A: have a bowl of miso soup and chill.
Answer:
I am very Sorry I mis read your name, JETX.
Thank you for your response, and for correcting my English.
**A: so what. Speech in the UK is not the subject.
It seems to me that the speech of the client is the subject. As far as I am aware, a seller must sell (advertise, present his wares) in such a way that the client can "reasonably" understand that he is buying something.
The country may well be important though. Is the definition that I copied from a dictionary not a common one in the US?
**A: boring non-relevant diatribe.
I am sorry that you found what I wrote boring and irrelevant. The most relevant part seemed to me to be in the dictionary definition.
> (I wrote) Was the company reasonable to assume that I would undestand their usage of the term?
**A: yes and the company was not wrong.
Well... I did misunderstand them. But perhaps you are right, they presented themselves in a reasonable, reasobably understandable way. I am not sure why you think that this is so.
**A: it is clear to a 5th grader that there would be a $69 charge to download.
When an image says in large letters "Royalty free" and when a dictionary says that royalty refers to the payment made to users of patented/copyright materials to owners, then I am not sure why a 5th grader would assume that they would have to pay.
**A: and what don't you understand. You downloaded the image and are liable for payment of the $69 as it is clearly stated on the website.
When I downloaded the "Royalty Free" image (with a right click of my mouse) I was told nothing. There was not anti right click warning, no watermark, no words explaning their unusual use of the phrase "royalty free." There was no mention of this in their terms and conditions of members ship, or on any of the pages that I viewed before arriving at the image. I have since found an explanation in their "FAQ."
(By the way, as stated above, I paid before I made my first post here)
Tim
Answer:
Next time before clicking the mouse read all disclaimers, use, terms and conditions, FAQ's etc.
And, do you know who you are communicating with on this website?
Answer:
Tim, the KEY to this entire situation is in your own definition that you posted, that a 'royalty' (in US or UK) as "a payment made to writers, people who have invented things, owners of property, etc. every time their books, devices, land, etc. are bought or used by others".
Simply, you paid $69 and BOUGHT the right to use it. Further, you no longer would have to pay for every subsequent use of THEIR property. What is confusing about that??