I made this into a submission ‘cause I write too much woops.
Actually, there is a way to be able to legally enforce the right to acquisition online, granted, it’s one really fickle thing. Currently, TOSs such as ones posted on dA or other websites which the artist does not own the domain are under the “browser bound” status, meaning, the artist cannot direct the user to the TOS. A user can still ignore its existence. On a domain which the artist DOES own, and if they have the ability to create a page direction or pop up showing their TOS on screen, (1)
that would give them a better ground to enforce their TOS. That is still “browser bound” however. If the artist goes a step further to have the user click an “I agree” button, they are now in “click-bound.” This essentially makes it more “legal” for an artist to hold a user to the TOS. Their actions can still be refuted in court but a click-bind signage of their TOS would give them a huge advantage. Granted, ANYTHING can be taken to court. (2)
A good example would be VPN service providers. All VPN providers HAVE to have a click-bound TOS due to the nature of the service, that being a private network. They have to make a disclaimer statement disowning and disallowing any sort of illegal activity in order to protect themselves. If a user buys a year subscription and does some fishy activity using a VPN and ends up breaking their TOS while using their product, (3)
the service provider can ban them from the software/service regardless if the user got their money’s worth. As far as artwork/designs/private group memberships etc. go, it’s not really worth it to even create a TOS in which you can “revoke” a design because it’s just not digitally possible. You gave them the full resolution artwork, they have it for how long they want to keep it. If you resell that artwork, the TOS breaker (4)
has the upper hand in court because they were not click-bound and even if they were, you would essentially be giving a “custom” asset or unique asset to two different customers. And naturally, NONE OF THIS STUFF IS GOING TO COURT. No one has the time or money to do that.
I used to have a revoking rule in my TOS but I did away with it because it’s just not worth it and also doesn’t make much sense for me to do. I instead would just make it that the banned person would not be able to use the designs they own in my group which is something I have complete control over. In my TOS, purchase description does NOT include group privileges because you do not retain those through purchase. My group is open to all members regardless if they purchased a design from me or not. That is a service separate from the product (being my designs). It is KEY to make sure that group privileges are not defined as a part of what someone is purchasing because it creates a very muddy situation when those group privileges are revoked.
Generally, having a clear and concise TOS is great for giving reasons to rejection of service but it’s not the best for overreach- acquisition of digital goods or services. A better idea is to offer a trustable brand and community in which people will not want to disregard the TOS not due to negative reinforcement but instead due to positive reinforcement and the benefits of a nice community/creative space.
