Proposed Changes to the Archive of Our Own's Terms of Service and Frequently Asked Questions

Post Header

Published:

2016-01-26 01:43:38 UTC

Tags:

Banner by Diane with the outlines of a man and woman speaking with word bubbles, one of which has the OTW logo and the other which says 'OTW Announcement'

The OTW Board of Directors has approved changes to the Archive of Our Own’s Terms of Service and Frequently Asked Questions. Proposed additions in bold; bracketed to be deleted.

This post marks the start of a two-week public comment period. Your comments and questions will be reviewed in order to evaluate whether further changes need to be made.

Thank you for your assistance.

III. Archive Privacy Policy

…

E. What we will do:

1. We may collect personally identifying information when you register for a user account with the Archive, visit any of the Archive sites, or use any of the Archive services. We may use third-party services to store, process, or transmit data, or perform other technical functions related to operating the site. These services may include spam detectors, backup services, icon hosting, and e-mail services. We endeavor to use only services with comprehensive privacy policies but cannot guarantee their performance. We or the services we use may store or process your personally identifying information in data centers which may be located in the United States or other countries.

2. We will use your e-mail address internally, and if you make it public on the site, anyone can access it and use it for any purpose. We may occasionally send e-mails to you from the Archive. We reserve the right to send you notice of complaints or violations [or suspensions] of the Terms of Service, as well as to reply to any e-mail message you send to the Archive.

3. We may retain:

a. the e-mail addresses of those who communicate with us via e-mail;
b. user-specific information about what pages users access or visit;
c. the IP address of each visitor to our sites;
d. any information that a person sends to OTW or Archive e-mail addresses (i.e., any e-mail to an administrator or other official address).

….

V. Assorted Policies

A. Collections, Challenges, and Exchanges

Archive users may create collections and encourage other users to submit fanworks to those collections. The collection maintainer can set any constraints they want on the collection, including rules about anonymous works (see A.4 below) but must otherwise follow the content policy (e.g., if the collection content is explicit, it should be marked as “explicit” or “choose not to rate”). The collection maintainer may be able to ask users for suggestions for new fanworks (“prompts”), collect prompts, match participants with prompts (including contacting them via the contact information provided to the Archive or to the collection maintainer), and show the prompts on the Archive, following the general rules governing works on the Archive. Where collection rules allow, prompts may be anonymous or limited-visibility, as detailed in A.4 and A.5 below.

A challenge maintainer can communicate with challenge participants. The challenge maintainer may have access to participants’ email addresses for this purpose.

FAQ:

Assorted Specialized Policies

Collections

What do you mean by "collections"?

Collections are groups of works collected together under one heading. Collections can be fic or art fests, exchanges, 'big bangs' matching artists, authors, and/or podficcers, or other types of creative challenges, as well as simple collections of fanworks chosen by the collection maintainer. Learn more about collections.

What information can the collection/challenge maintainer see about participants?

The maintainer can see prompts as well as the username and email address that participants use to sign up, in case the maintainer needs to communicate with participants.

What's the point of having separate rules for collections/challenges?

The rules are basically the same as for everything else on the Archive. This just allows another way to group fanworks by areas of interest. There is one important special rule: if the collection maintainer says in the rules that submissions are final, then you can't withdraw your contribution from the collection, though you can always orphan it. We put this rule in place to allow gift exchanges. Ordinarily, removing a fanwork from the Archive is sad, but it's up to you. But when you've added a fanwork as a gift, and possibly received a fanwork as a gift in return, we think it's fair to say that the other participants should continue to enjoy the benefit of your contribution. In those cases, orphaning allows you to sever your connection with the fanwork while not removing it from the collection. This policy was based on prior experience with the Yuletide Rare Fandoms gift exchange.

I think my fanwork would be perfect for a collection, but the maintainer won't add it to the collection!

Unless there's an independent violation of the Content Policy, we won't intervene in collection decisions, even if they are arbitrary, biased, or wrong. You may want to add tags to your fanwork that will be of interest to people who are fans of relevant collections.

How can I start a collection?

Please consult our Tutorials. Please note that participants may provide information to the maintainer for purposes of participating in a collection or challenge. Any use of this information other than to manage the collection or challenge is a violation of our Terms of Service and can result in the termination of the maintainer's account.

Other Changes

Can orphaning be reversed?

Usually not. [If you orphan a work inadvertently, or wish to rewrite it and repost under your name, and you can verify your identity as the author in a way we consider reliable enough, we may be able to reverse the orphaning. But orphaning may be irreversible in some cases,] Orphaning is irreversible in most cases, so please use this option carefully.

What if what I want to post isn’t similar to one of the examples listed in the Terms of Service FAQ?

In general, you can post any non-ephemeral, transformative content that is fannish in nature. If you have doubts about any particular examples and you don’t want to risk posting it, you can always contact our [Support] Abuse team to ask, using the [Support] Abuse form.

Actions

Comments

Sorry, this news post doesn't allow comments.

Pages Navigation

briar_pipe Tue 26 Jan 2016 02:31AM UTC

\o/
Thanks for working to keep the ToS up-to-date with current Archive code and practices! <3
Quick question - in the very final sentence, is the Abuse form meant to be linked to the Support team? Otherwise, "Support team to ask" might need to be replaced by "Abuse team to ask". But that's it!
ETA: I see you fixed it already. So fast, amazing! \o/

Last Edited Tue 26 Jan 2016 04:20AM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Tue 26 Jan 2016 10:55AM UTC
  
  It is indeed fixed! \o/
  Matty
  Abuse Chair
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Serai Tue 26 Jan 2016 03:42AM UTC

1) Being vague about where our personal information is stored is NOT ON. If you don't know where our personal information is stored, then you shouldn't be storing it.
2) Forcing someone to orphan a work against their will is unethical, no matter how it is stored on the site. If a gift recipient wants to hold onto a fic, they can DOWNLOAD it. By forcing the author to orphan, you're opening them up to being plagiarized, because that author's name will no longer be on the work, thus removing the protection of authorship. (Not to mention the fact that you're highhandedly demanding that the author do this or that with a fic that YOU DO NOT OWN. What gives you the right to tell authors what to do with their writing, or demand that an author relinquish all claim to a story she's written because OMG FEELINGS?) Archiving on a site like this is one of the ways authors establish that a fic is theirs, with a timestamp to show when it was posted. If you force an author to abandon a piece of writing because OMG GIFT, you're basically saying your convenience is more important than the author's ownership of her work. I will certainly not participate in challenges or collections as long as this rule is in place, and honestly, the cavalier nature of this rule makes me think about moving my stuff elsewhere.
3) Calling your support team an "Abuse Team" muddies the waters unnecessarily. Why would I go looking for an Abuse Team if I just have a question about something? Isn't clarity of any importance in your TOS?

Last Edited Tue 26 Jan 2016 03:48AM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Account Deleted Tue 26 Jan 2016 08:47AM UTC
  
  Hello, I just wanted to be clear on something, genuinely asking ths question, uhm, where did they indicate or did you feel like they are forcing an author to orphan their work?
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. elsie (Guest) Tue 26 Jan 2016 09:59AM UTC
  
  Wow, you enjoy ranting about things you know nothing about, don't you?
  1) No one is being vague.
  2) Many people willing orphan their works. There is an entire FAQ about this you should probably read. It has nothing to do with challenges. http://archiveofourown.org/faq/orphaning?language_id=en#orphanwhatis
  3) There is a Support team and an Abuse team. It sounds like they are switching so that the Abuse team is being contacted in the future, not Support. WTF are you even whining about?
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
3. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Tue 26 Jan 2016 11:18AM UTC
  
  Hi Serai,
  These are minor changes to our existing Terms of Service (ToS). Several unrelated sections are being changed. The bold parts are being added and the sections in brackets [ ] are being removed. Anything not bold or in brackets is already part of the existing Terms of Service which you agreed to when you joined the Archive.
  I believe this section, which is already a part of the ToS may be responsible for some confusion: There is one important special rule: if the collection maintainer says in the rules that submissions are final, then you can't withdraw your contribution from the collection, though you can always orphan it.
  Users have full control over their works. They can post, delete, or orphan any works, including those in collections. However, mods may have rules outlining penalties for removing works from collections and Archive admins will not intercede in how collections/challenges are managed. Since this part is a bit confusing, I will bring it back to the committees for discussion.
  Our Abuse committee handles ToS violations. Our Support committee handles customer service issues. Currently the ToS directs users to contact our Support committee if they have questions about what can or can't be hosted. Since these decisions are made by our Abuse committee, not Support, we are clarifying the wording in the existing ToS.
  Matty
  AO3 Abuse Chair
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
4. 1. Account Deleted Tue 26 Jan 2016 04:41PM UTC
    
    "Since this part is a bit confusing, I will bring it back to the committees for discussion."
    I think what's confusing is the "can't". It basically says, well, that users *can't* delete works they've posted in collections.
    If what you meant was collection maintainers would *prefer* users not delete their fics, that is a completely different thing. And, frankly, something that doesnt really fall within the purview of the TOS. It's nothing more than an interpersonal issue between users.
    These revisions are just clarifying the status quo, right? And currently it's perfectly possible to delete works posted in collections, even in gift exchanges. Are there plans to change that?
    
    Last Edited Tue 26 Jan 2016 04:43PM UTC
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. VorpalGirl Thu 28 Jan 2016 10:28PM UTC
      
      I'm not sure what the confusion is on this point? It seems more of a contractual thing between users is being clarified - and it's not at all onerous? It's... reasonable. It's a matter of what you're agreeing to do, and not being allowed to "back out" of agreements that are SECONDARY to hosting on the archive in general, but still would be considered legally binding anyway?
      What I mean is: You do not ever HAVE to add something to a Collection, nor are you obligated to Gift a fic.
      But, if you do choose to add something to a Collection, according to the TOS, you are of course agreeing to the terms that everyone else who contributes to that Collection agrees to and IF IN THAT PARTICULAR COLLECTION, the rules say "submissions are final", then, well, as it would be elsewhere in the world, you would not be able to revoke the submission. It's just them clarifying that if you AGREE to the terms of a Collection, you can't try to violate those terms later on. But in ANY OTHER area of publishing/arts/what have you, "submissions are final" means exactly that, so...this isn't really onerous at all. It's just normal. And in fact, if you find it embarrassing later and do not want to be associated with it (the major reason to formally Orphan a work, let's be real), you can Orphan it so that your name is no longer associated with it. You just can't literally go back on your word, your word in this case being "yes I agree that this submission is final". Again, there is NOTHING in this that is onerous, it's just requiring you to be aware that when things say "submissions are final", they're final. Literally everywhere else in the world would hold you to that, so...yeah.
      And as for Gift Fic being non-deletable, it seems that their logic is that it's sort of equivalent, in that, you have AGREED, openly, to Gift this work to the person, which in the case of fic obviously means "make available for their enjoyment". By trying to remove it from the archive later, you would be going back on the (implied) word of making it available to them. Think of it like this: if you Gift something like a car, you can't just take it back without permission, right? It's implicit in the act of Gifting something, anything, that it isn't something you are going to demand back - otherwise that would be a Loan, not a Gift.
      There is nothing in the TOS that said you can't edit works that are Gifted or part of a Collection (though I imagine the latter would be a matter of the Collection's rules?), so it's not like you're stuck with not being able to change it, from the sounds of it? They do still give you the option to Orphan if you do not want to be associated with it that badly.
      I could see how some people might feel edgy about not being able to remove things later but...really, it's not unreasonable to ask these things. If you're THAT leary of losing your right to remove it from the Archive, then it seems the easy thing is to not FORMALLY mark it as part of a Collection that would disallow that, or as a Gift. You can still "gift" a fic without formally Gifting it in terms of the Archive's posting mechanics, you know; just tell the person you made it for them and link them to it.
      The only issue I can see arising is for Gift Fic that was made prior to this change in ToS, but...it sounds like you could probably bring it up with Abuse Team (the people who control what stays up on the Archive and would have the ability to remove things), and hypothetically get it removed, on the logic that when you posted it, you did so under a different contract (TOS). I'm sure that'd be on a case by case basis, but it's not impossible I'd imagine, especially if you chose to do so when these changes are fresh.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. Account Deleted Fri 29 Jan 2016 04:48AM UTC
        
        Yeah, okay, except you missed the part where you literally can delete a gift fic and fics in collections. Absolutely nothing is preventing it. It's possible.
        So let's look at what they probably actually meant: "You're not allowed to delete your work in these circumstances." An author has zero obligation to keep their work online, no matter how much someone else might want it to be there; if the recipient wants to keep it so much, they can download it.
        The Organization for Transformative Works makes such a big deal out of being there to protect fan authors' rights. But the right to remove your fic is also a right, unless and until Ao3 adds a clause saying something like "by posting your work on our site you grant us a worldwide non-exclusive license to host your work in perpetuity", which I doubt is likely to happen.
        
        Last Edited Fri 29 Jan 2016 04:49AM UTC
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. VorpalGirl Sat 30 Jan 2016 03:06AM UTC
        
        You seem not to understand a few very key points here. (Apologies ahead of time for CAPSLOCK EMPHASIS; HTML is being fussy for me rn so it's there in place of italics/bold)
        First: "except you missed the part where you literally can delete a gift fic and fics in collections. Absolutely nothing is preventing it. It's possible" is completely irrelevant to the discussion. I'm not "missing" anything, because this has nothing to do with what you can or cannot "literally do", functionally, and everything with what you are AGREEING to do (this is, after all, the Terms of Service, not the "actual description of functionality of the site").
        "An author has zero obligation to keep their work online, no matter how much someone else might want it to be there; if the recipient wants to keep it so much, they can download it."
        Nope, wrong. Sorry but legally, you are wrong. An author of a work when they ORIGINATE it is under "zero obligation" to do anything, because they have yet to use any of their rights under copyright law, and yet to cede any.
        However, the moment you start doing things with your work, is the moment you choose to alter your remaining rights and IF YOU CHOOSE TO SUBMIT TO SOMETHING THAT SAYS SUBMISSIONS CANNOT BE REVOKED, then guess what? You are agreeing to a CONTRACT. That says, you know, you cannot revoke your submission. "Submissions are final" is a common and unambiguous, legally-binding statement.
        I don't know what is so hard to understand about that part: if you willingly submit to a COLLECTION - not the Archive in general, specifically an individual Collection - which says "submissions are final" (which, you know means non-take-back-able), then you are CEDING THE RIGHT to take it back. Full. Stop. That's how it works literally everywhere. Magazines? Film competitions? Yup, yup, they'd interpret it the same way. You aren't at all being forced to keep your works up in general; you're only being required to follow YOUR OWN AGREEMENT, that YOU made, upon submission of those particular works, that you CHOSE to submit, to specific Collections that say: "all submissions are final".
        Really, all the Archive is saying is that they don't endorse PEOPLE BREAKING A CONTRACT. That's exactly what you're agreeing to when you submit to a Collection! A private contract, between yourself and the person(s) running the Collection. The reason you can still "literally" remove such works from such Collections, is probably to allow for, say, cases where the people running the Collection do, in fact, allow you to remove it, despite the fact that, legally, you agreed to give up that right.
        Stop implying that you automatically retain all rights no matter what you do with a work - that isn't how copyright WORKS. Sometimes, your own voluntary actions DO change and remove some of your rights, and it's not good to let people think they can just...ignore that. Because that can and has and will bite people in the ass in other ways if they don't know how copyright works.
        For instance, just as an example, you know how AO3 allows "Original Works"? Well, guess what? If you publish an Original Work to the Archive, it's PUBLISHED. This means that if you want to give or sell the First Publication Rights to say, a magazine, guess what? You can't! Because you already gave up that right, to the Archive, when you initially posted it; even if you hosted it only on your own website, if it were publicly-viewable at any point whatsoever, you wouldn't be able to sell "First Publication Rights" to anybody, ever again, because you already USED those rights.
        You probably think that example is irrelevant, but it's not, because I'm pointing out that no, there IS no such thing as "zero obligation" once you do anything at all with your work that involves OTHER PEOPLE, including just posting it where it can be seen, but ESPECIALLY when you submit it to a "submissions final" situation.
        Gift Fic is a potentially more complex situation, but the Collections thing is not.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        (3 more comments in this thread)
phoenixacid Tue 26 Jan 2016 06:18AM UTC

Yay for keeping the ToS up to date! :D
Sorry if this is addressed elsewhere. Just a quick question/suggestion about your very last sentence. Maybe explain a little more on how to use the abuse form to ask the abuse team questions? Currently there is a "Link to the page you are reporting (required)" box in the Abuse form do they just fill in the third "concerns" box and leave the url and the second boxes empty? Thanks!

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Tue 26 Jan 2016 11:20AM UTC
  
  Hi phoenixacid,
  We are planning on updating the Abuse form in the next few months, so we likely won't add any details to the ToS at this moment. For now though, please do put the question in the 'Describe your concern (required)' field. Users are welcome to choose one of the categories if they feel it fits their question or they can leave that field empty.
  Matty
  AO3 Abuse
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
FaerieChild Tue 26 Jan 2016 09:06AM UTC

Wow. How you possibly assert that gifting a work in any way severs the content creator's rights? When Monet and Renoir used to paint the same scenes and swap paintings that doesn't make a Monet a Renoir or a Renoir a Monet. It is like the dedication at the beginning of a novel - saying you wrote something for someone does not give that person creative rights in your work and the way that one gift exchange was conducted ought not to dictate the terms of an entire archive. I really cannot support the proposed policy on gift exchanges at all. What is hugely concerning is the implication that a maintainer can choose works. Can you be clear that where a maintainer chooses works for their own collection that the creator will not lose their rights over their own work, e.g. the right to pull it if they so choose and that the maintainer will not gain the rights you say they will have. It is completely unacceptable that someone could choose a work for their collection and that someone then gains rights over that work without the content creator's consent.
I also cannot agree with not allowing creators to remove their work simply because it is in a challenge. That provision is a complete betrayal of everything this archive stands for and the safe space and support for creator rights that this archive purports to have been founded for in the first place.
You'll let maintainers see people emails but you won't get involved in collective decisions even if they are biased, arbitrary or wrong?! You can orphan works in a collection but not pull them? The provisions you are suggesting give far too much power to one individual maintainer over content creator's rights over their own work. Maintainer's powers should be subject to and not trump the rights of content creators. What you are suggesting is like Amazon's failed fanworks thing which was roundly (and rightly) criticised from all corners of fandom. I have never before heard any suggestion that content creators lose rights over their works by participating in a big bang, a challenge or any other collective endeavor and I find the suggested terms here extremely concerning and profoundly unethical. I would refuse to participate in any future event of this nature and would consider pulling all works and ceasing use of this site.
Is the support team being rebranded the abuse teamor is this an entirely new team?
Can you be clear about the rules that maintainers specifically would be required to abide by, what the oversight would be, how to get a maintainer removed, how to ensure protected data e.g. emails is no longer available to a removed maintainer, any system for replacing a maintainer with another individual and whether the rights of the maintainer are personal right or specific to the role and will be lost if another person takes over that role? Does an second maintainer replacing a first maintainer inherit their responsibilities and rights or is it the case that it is not possible to replace a maintainer and that first maintainer continues in that role for life? What happens if a maintainer decides to delete or remove a collection?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Tue 26 Jan 2016 11:43AM UTC
  
  Hi FaerieChild,
  These are minor changes to our existing Terms of Service. Several unrelated sections are being changed. The bold parts are being added and the sections in brackets [ ] are being removed. Anything not bold or in brackets is already part of the existing Terms of Service which you agreed to when you joined the Archive.
  I believe this section, which is already a part of the ToS may be responsible for some confusion: There is one important special rule: if the collection maintainer says in the rules that submissions are final, then you can't withdraw your contribution from the collection, though you can always orphan it.
  Users have full control over their works. They can post, delete, or orphan any works, including those in collections. However, mods may have rules outlining penalties for removing works from collections and Archive admins will not intercede in how collections/challenges are managed. Since this part is a bit confusing, I will bring it back to the committees for discussion.
  Our Abuse committee handles ToS violations. Our Support committee handles customer service issues. Both committees have been active since the Archive went into Open Beta. Currently the ToS directs users to contact our Support committee if they have questions about what can or can't be hosted. Since these decisions are made by our Abuse committee, not Support, we are clarifying the wording in the existing ToS.
  Moderators have full control over collections/challenges. If you have questions about how a particular challenge is managed, you will need to ask the moderators involved. However, once a moderator is removed, they will no longer have access to the collection/challenge admin functions on AO3 and as such can not view any personal information. While we have not had any reports of abuse, we are adding a section to our ToS that does state that any misuse of this personal information will be a violation of the ToS and we will take steps as needed.
  Deleting a collection/challenge does not mean works in them are deleted. Only the link that leads to the collection/challenge will be removed.
  Matty
  AO3 Abuse
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. FaerieChild Tue 26 Jan 2016 07:40PM UTC
    
    Thank you for your clarification. I think the ToS need to be clearer that the provisions refer to the collections and not the works themselves if that is the case and whether it is going to be physically possible (and perhaps just considered bad form) for an author to delete or orphan a work in any circumstances. If the ToS refers to works being deleted, it should be clear whether that means deleted from the archive or removed from a collection - in which case the work has not been deleted from the archive and still exists - and that the latter does not affect the former. The wording implies that a content creator will be subject to the maintainer's decision as to whether or not a work is on AO3 itself when it is included in a collection. If the intention is maintain the possibility to delete in that situation and it is simply that the Archive has a non-interventionist policy with regard to whether or not a work is included in a collection that should be made clearer. The wording I initially read implied it was going to be physically impossible for a creator to have that power over their own work and that power would vest in the maintainer. If you mean instead that the maintainer has the power to decide whether or not the work is included in a collection but not whether or not whether the work is on the archive, the wording needs to be much clearer about the distinction between inclusion in a collection and inclusion in the archive and about which terms apply to 1. works themselves and/or their content creators 2. the way a collection is managed and whether or not a work is included in a collection. If you intend to create a distinction your draft needs to be iterate that the distinction exists, the ToS applying to each and the situation where those terms intercede and/or there is a conflict between the rights of a content creator in their own work under law and the powers that AO3 chooses to give to maintainers on this website. I would also recommend a clear statement that the rights of a creator with regard to their work is not affected by a maintainer's decision on what is included in a collection. Content creators have been screwed over too many times by too many websites to give anyone the benefit of any doubt. I would also appreciate an independent statement from the Archive's legal team with their assessment of if and/or how any proposed changes would affect the legal rights of content creators under law.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
3. VorpalGirl Thu 28 Jan 2016 10:52PM UTC
  
  "When Monet and Renoir used to paint the same scenes and swap paintings that doesn't make a Monet a Renoir or a Renoir a Monet."
  Of course not! But likewise, Monet would not have the right to walk into Renoir's house, take the painting he had done off the wall, and set fire to it.
  My understanding of this under the TOS is that they are treating Gift Fic as would any other tangible item being Gifted under law be treated; by Gifting someone something, you are giving them certain very limited rights to hang onto and enjoy it. You aren't (unless you actively indicate as such) telling them they can make copies of it; you are not losing your right to make copies or changes to the work. But once you have CHOSEN to GIVE A COPY of the work to someone, you cannot remove it from them without their permission. Because that would be a violation of the singular right (to enjoy the work you created) that YOU afforded them by formally indicating "this is a Gift, to this person(s)".
  I'm actually fairly certain that this is the way any other text would be treated IRL under law; if you emailed someone a story for instance, you would still have the legal right to control whether they redistribute copies of it, make changes to it, or claim authorship over it - they cannot do any of those three things without your permission - but you cannot demand that they delete it off their own personal email that YOU deliberately chose to send it to. Likewise, if you physically handed someone a manuscript with explicit indication that it was a "gift", you would not be legally allowed to permanently take that copy of the manucript back without their permission, under the vast majority of circumstances (and the minority circumstances would be something like "it can be medically and legally proved that I was not in my right mind at the time of the 'gifting' act").
  About the ONLY thing I might suggest to the Archive is this: in cases of Gift Fic, would it be possible to make a work available ONLY to the people to whom it is formally, officially, according to the Archive, Gifted? This might resolve the issue somewhat, if the author could change the accessibility of the work to be viewed only by the Recipient(s) - this way, the agreed-upon Gift is not actually revoked, but it could be kept private between the author and the recipient(s) without ever having to revoke ownership/authorship, much the same way privately emailing or physically sending a copy would keep it "private".
  I've also always been curious as to why Pseuds are automatically all connected together - another reasonable alternative might be to allow "anonymous pseuds" - that is, pseuds that are not publically viewable as connected to a particular account, even though the Archive keeps track of who the "anonymous"/pseudonymous author is (unlike Orphan works, which are exactly that). Allowing that and then allowing a person to apply an "anon pseud" to it later might resolve some of the issue of "I don't actually want to give up copyright and it shouldn't be revokable as a Gift but I don't want it associated with my usual pen name"?
  Food for thought, as the point with Gifting is to allow the recipient to enjoy it, yes? And both those options would allow them to still enjoy it, while respecting authors' other copyrights?
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
HawkeyeState Tue 26 Jan 2016 10:21AM UTC

Although it may seem neither fair nor right for someone to pull a challenge or gift fic, I strongly disagree with the decision not to allow creators full rights over their content, including the right to pull a work from a collection or a challenge. Whenever you have a social fandom thing, including challenges and collections, you'll have fanwank, but I believe that the creator's right on their works should trump enforced politeness. Does that mean that some people are free to be jerks about it? Probably, but the alternative seems worse.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Tue 26 Jan 2016 11:46AM UTC
  
  Hi HawkeyeState,
  These are minor changes to our existing Terms of Service. Several unrelated sections are being changed. The bold parts are being added and the sections in brackets [ ] are being removed. Anything not bold or in brackets is already part of the existing Terms of Service which you agreed to when you joined the Archive.
  I believe this section, which is already a part of the ToS may be responsible for some confusion: There is one important special rule: if the collection maintainer says in the rules that submissions are final, then you can't withdraw your contribution from the collection, though you can always orphan it.
  Users have full control over their works. They can post, delete, or orphan any works, including those in collections. However, mods may have rules outlining penalties for removing works from collections and Archive admins will not intercede in how collections/challenges are managed. Since this part is a bit confusing, I will bring it back to the committees for discussion.
  Matty
  AO3 Abuse
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Wolves_of_Innistrad Tue 26 Jan 2016 03:07PM UTC
    
    I've never had any problems with the AO3, but I have to say copy/pasting almost the exact same reply to every single person who brings up an issue does not make it seem like you care about that issue at all, even if it is the most succinct answer you have to their concerns...
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. WWJD (Guest) Tue 26 Jan 2016 04:53PM UTC
      
      This might be a cultural bias. I don't see anything wrong with it, or how else the org is supposed to answer. What would you do, given that you would be speaking on behalf of an org, as you say it is the most succinct answer, and you are a volunteer with many other time commitments?
      Carefully thought out form answers are standard business practice. The want for personalization and special treatment might be due to your Nationality or age or job?
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. musikurt Wed 27 Jan 2016 03:51AM UTC
      
      If people are asking the same question, I don't see a problem with it. It's at least a better practice than not responding at all and assuming they are reading the answer posted to someone else's question, which is something I've seen other sites/organizations do.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
  3. Morbane Tue 26 Jan 2016 10:23PM UTC
    
    Since this part is a bit confusing, I will bring it back to the committees for discussion.
    I think that would be a very good thing and I look forward to clarified wording. While I am glad the Archive supports challenge runners or collection maintainers in this way, I don't think it needs to be a special rule, and should be dealt with between collection maintainers & challenge runners and their participants. Collection maintainers & challenge runners can still have the right to say what behaviour falls within the rules of their challenge, without particular aspects of those rules needing to be part of the TOS as well.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
ErinPtah Tue 26 Jan 2016 01:23PM UTC

The section on orphaning works should mention "adding your work to an anonymous collection" as an alternative. Takes your name off the work as displayed, but you're still able to edit or delete it -- or simply put your name back on it -- whenever you choose. Every time I see a user debating whether to orphan a fic, and someone mentions this, there are people saying "I had no idea that was an option, but that's exactly what I need."
I know there are a couple different collections set up to never reveal the authors, including Anonymous and Anonymous_fics. I don't know if there are any the AO3 can officially endorse, but surely it's worth mentioning "although we don't officially guarantee these, here are some options users have created."

Sidenote: the "cannot delete a work if it's part of certain kinds of challenges" rule sounds fine to me. If a user wants the absolute right to delete their work no matter what, all you have to do is choose not to enter those challenges.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Wed 27 Jan 2016 01:35AM UTC
  
  Hi SailorPtah,
  While this is an option, it is not something that we can officially endorse in our Terms of Service. These types of collections are not run by Archive admins and the moderators can change the settings without warning. We do not want to endorse options that may not be completely safe for our users.
  Matty
  AO3 Abuse
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. ErinPtah Wed 27 Jan 2016 05:27AM UTC
    
    Surely you can say "this is a feature the Archive provides" without endorsing any specific collections, or their moderator. You can even go out of your way to say "the Archive does not endorse any specific collections or their moderators."
    ...I mean, the AO3 could always create an official permanently-unrevealed collection. (Maybe set orphan_account as the moderator.)
    But in lieu of that -- a user can always create their own collection and set it to unrevealed, allowing them to be completely confident that its works won't be revealed without their knowledge. Or we can just weigh the risks that Anonymous_fic is modded by a troll playing a long game, and decide for ourselves whether it's worth the benefit. Same kind of calculation you have to do to post anything anywhere on the Internet, including on the AO3 in general.
    Bottom line is, unless the functionality is some kind of secret, there's no reason not to admit that it exists! Bare-bones facts, especially if you frame them with disclaimers, are a completely different thing from endorsement.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Thu 28 Jan 2016 12:05AM UTC
      
      Hi,
      The Terms of Service are rules which one must agree to abide by in order to use a service. They are not intended to cover every possible option available on the Archive. Users are welcome to set up anonymous collections and offer those as alternatives to orphaning.
      However, please do keep in mind that the only way to ensure true anonymity is to orphan a work. This removes all identifying information - not even archive admins can view who orphaned a work. Anonymous collections are not risk free and as such we can not officially endorse them. People are welcome to use them, but they do need to realize that archive admins and collection mods can see who created any works in the collection. If the collection mod decides to reveal or remove all the works in the collection they can. This would not be considered a violation of the Terms of Service and we would not intervene.
      If one wants to retain control of a work but not have it associated with their current account, the best option would be to set up a separate account and post the work there.
      Matty
      AO3 Abuse
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. VorpalGirl Thu 28 Jan 2016 11:06PM UTC
        
        "Anonymous collections are not risk free and as such we can not officially endorse them. People are welcome to use them, but they do need to realize that archive admins and collection mods can see who created any works in the collection. If the collection mod decides to reveal or remove all the works in the collection they can. This would not be considered a violation of the Terms of Service and we would not intervene."
        I am fairly certain a lot of users aren't aware the option, risky or not, exists though, as I certainly didn't!
        You can always practically verbatim mention this (pretty much exactly copy that paragraph, really) in the section on Orphaning works? This paragraph is fairly straightforward in explaining the risk, and I'm sure a lot of people would prefer to know about it rather than get ticked off later that they didn't know it was even an option - again, risky or not.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
  3. busaikko (Guest) Wed 27 Jan 2016 10:29AM UTC
    
    With all due respect, I very strongly disagree.
    People most often want works to be anonymous. They do not want to orphan them. But AO3 actively promotes the idea that in order for a creator to be anonymous, they must orphan their works -- even in this very post.
    But when you've added a fanwork as a gift, and possibly received a fanwork as a gift in return, we think it's fair to say that the other participants should continue to enjoy the benefit of your contribution. In those cases, orphaning allows you to sever your connection with the fanwork while not removing it from the collection. [emphasis mine]
    Whereas by using an anonymous collection, a creator can keep a work in a collection, the work can be kept perpetually anonymous, and the creator can retain full and complete control of the work (ability to edit, ability to delete) for perpetuity.
    The FAQ could direct users to the tutorial on how to set up their own Anonymous Collections (a perfectly legitimate use of AO3), if you're too worried about even the mere suggestion that such things exist. But as it stands now, you only promote the most drastic of all options -- amputation instead of bone-setting -- and have apparently distressed users who took that drastic option on your advice, wished to reverse it, and were told no, hence the need for the wording change.
    Stronger FAQ wording is pointless if you still suggest that orphaning is the only option.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  4. 1. FaerieChild Wed 27 Jan 2016 08:29PM UTC
      
      Thank you for this helpful post, busaikko. As you say, a lot of people do not want to orphan works, myself included and you have brought something to mind which I think is worthy of mention in the context of the promotion of orphaning and the confused wording of the proposed new ToS. I had no idea that anonymous collections was even an option on this site?
      There was the issue a few months ago of works being taken directly from the AO3 servers and posted for profit on ebooks-tree. At the time I was concerned that works that had been previously orphaned could have been taken and sold for-profit by ebooks-tree. Without being able to prove who wrote a work it was difficult to assert or prove rights with regard to orphaned works. At the time AO3's position was that orphaning a work does not sever the creator's rights in their work. Yet they state the process is 'irreversible in most cases' and provides no way of the writer proving the work is theirs if they later have need to do so, in a situation such as arose in the e-books tree scenario.
      It seems to me that what you suggest would provide a satisfactory solution to prevent this situation recurring in the future. What's more, I am unclear why AO3 would have a non-interventionist policy with regard to maintainers of collections and challenges having power over other people's works even where it harms people (including content creators), but would refuse to endorse an anonymous option that would give creators power over their own works...on the grounds that it could harm people. I doubt I am either the first or the last to run into issues with orphaning after the fact. Other options that allow an author to maintain a connection with their work would certainly be preferable.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. briar_pipe Wed 27 Jan 2016 10:33PM UTC
      
      (Full disclosure: I'm an OTW staff member speaking only for myself about my own experiences, not for the OTW. I am not a member of the Abuse or Legal teams.)
      I've used Anonymous collections myself, so I appreciate that some people prefer those as an option. However, I use them knowing full well that they're not actually anonymous. The collection maintainer can see the names of everyone who has submitted works, and the maintainer can reveal the collection at any time, accidentally or deliberately. Some of the other anonymity-breaking issues have been resolved by coders - yay coders! - but I don't think these two ever can be, because they're part of normal functioning for collections that intend to be revealed.
      Anonymous collections tend to have disclaimers stuck on them by the maintainers that explain these issues. I use these collections knowing the risks, but I don't think the ToS can advocate using something that's outside official OTW control as a permanent solution to the anonymity issue. As was said higher up in this post re: another topic, that's an issue between users (that is, between me and the maintainer of the collection I use). If I don't trust that person, I won't use their collection.
      In order for a work to be truly anonymous, orphaning is the only option at this time. If a user wants partial, conditional, and possibly-breakable anonymity, then they can pick an anonymous collection run by someone they trust. Maybe, if you're feeling enthusiastic about it, you can open an anonymous collection yourself (with disclaimers attached) and offer that opportunity to others, while explaining your commitment to anonymity. People know and trust you, so I think that'd be pretty awesome. If that happened, I might even switch some of my own works over. ^_^
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    3. 1. busaikko (Guest) Thu 28 Jan 2016 11:14AM UTC
        
        Any AO3 user can create their own Anonymous collection. Many people have both a main account and a sock or dentist account (a proud Yuletide tradition!). As easy as it would be for me to open my own collection... it would be equally easy for absolutely any user to create their own collection -- about which I see absolutely no problem with AO3 suggesting, as it wouldn't be endorsing existing collections. "Users who want to retain control over works and not orphan them may create an Anonymous collection using a sock account that is not associated with your main username, and post works there."
        The risk is much greater with orphaned works that the AO3 will not allow to be deleted. It leaves creators vulnerable, exposed, and helpless -- it's an internet presence that cannot be deleted.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. briar_pipe Mon 08 Feb 2016 11:20PM UTC
        
        (Still speaking for myself.)
        *cocks head sideways* At that point, would it not be easier to just post the works under the sock in the first place? I mean, the reason I didn't personally do what you suggest is that if my works are the only one in an anonymous collection, that quickly becomes fairly obvious. The first anon collection I added any work to had less than a dozen works on it when I first added one, which meant that, practically speaking, my work there wasn't terribly anonymous either until a reasonable usage had been built up.
        I think maybe we're operating under different expectations? I know of no other fannish context where someone can both retain control of a work and make that work truly anonymous, without any pseud attached. All the archives I'm familiar with require an account to post, as do LJ/DW/Tumblr/deviantArt/etc. Posting anon to a kink meme means leaving a comment that I can no longer control or edit. Posting via a mod somewhere means giving them control of my work. That's been true across my entire fannish experience, from mailing lists until now. Orphaning is a new ability I've never seen elsewhere, where I can turn something anonymous after the fact instead of deleting it; the process is plastered with warnings about it being irreversible. True anonymity without orphaning would probably take a large amount of coder effort, and Abuse and Legal have no power to make promises on behalf of coders in terms of what features they will try to implement or when approved features will be implemented.
        To clarify, since I don't think most folks are aware: anon collections are not only revealable and visible to the creator, but they're also visible to anyone with an admin account on the site. That means I and other staff of specific AO3 committees have the ability (though not the interest) to see the author information. While we have strict rules about what information can or can't be shared, that's an important and pretty permanent barrier to full anonymity. I trust the members of my team and the other AO3 working teams, but if a user is extremely concerned about anonymity, I wouldn't expect them to give that trust to all future staff on these teams. Users may not know my fellow volunteers as well as I do.
        I mean, I get why you're asking for an option where it'd be possible to post truly anonymously while retaining control over a work; that'd be a really cool feature that no other fannish site I know of offers. It's simply not something that exists at this time here, and having the ToS offer a workaround that doesn't genuinely work isn't something I think we can fairly request of Legal and Abuse. Instead, it'd probably be good to document how anonymity works (or doesn't work) in a FAQ, like the Orphaning FAQ does for orphaning works.
        At the end of the day, orphaning isn't really an alternative to anonymity with control. It's an alternative to deletion, which is what it was created to address, because that's the only option people have on other sites.
        
        Last Edited Mon 08 Feb 2016 11:22PM UTC
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      3. Ryo Hoshi (Hoshi_Ryo) Fri 29 Jan 2016 02:06AM UTC
        
        Honestly, the only problem I have is that it could be easier to search for the Anonymous collections, to see if there are any set up by somebody I trust. Also, having set up and run collections/challenges, I'd actually like to have the option of having being able to have revealing left in the participants' hands after a given date.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      4. briar_pipe Fri 29 Jan 2016 03:20AM UTC
        
        (Still speaking for myself.)
        I think that'd be a cool and useful feature! If you're interested, you could submit it to the Support team at the link at the bottom of this page (labelled "Technical Support and Feedback") and ask them to add it to the list of suggestions for coders to consider. I mean, obviously it wouldn't happen right away if it did get approved, since there are about a million things on the coders lists, but at least that way someone will know there's interest.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
Account Deleted Tue 26 Jan 2016 01:43PM UTC

"There is one important special rule: if the collection maintainer says in the rules that submissions are final, then you can't withdraw your contribution from the collection, though you can always orphan it. We put this rule in place to allow gift exchanges. Ordinarily, removing a fanwork from the Archive is sad, but it's up to you. But when you've added a fanwork as a gift, and possibly received a fanwork as a gift in return, we think it's fair to say that the other participants should continue to enjoy the benefit of your contribution. In those cases, orphaning allows you to sever your connection with the fanwork while not removing it from the collection. This policy was based on prior experience with the Yuletide Rare Fandoms gift exchange."
This is a bit confusing - does this mean that if a work is in a collection where submissions are final, one will be denied the right to delete one's own work from the archive? If so, even if the work was part of a gift exchange, I think that it is not right to remove authors of their right to delete their work. It may contain material that has (unforeseeably) become emotionally traumatising to them since the work was posted, not leaving them at ease until it is completely removed. If it simply means that mods of gift exchanges can enforce punishments for removing works, then it is a different problem, but I'd still feel bad for sanctioning authors for acting out the right over their creations. I think that the individual author's right should outweigh the community's right to a gift they received thanks to the author's good will. That is the only way, in my eyes, to create a truly safe space.

Last Edited Tue 26 Jan 2016 03:07PM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Wed 27 Jan 2016 01:37AM UTC
  
  Hi warmmilkandtea,
  This is an existing part of our Terms of Service, though it is not enforced as outlined. However, since it is misleading we will be bringing it up for discussion.
  Matty
  AO3 Abuse
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Account Deleted Tue 26 Jan 2016 04:16PM UTC

The banner in this post also doesn't scale on mobile devices... It makes scrolling annoying since it adds a left-right component if my hand slips even a little.

Comment Actions
- Thread
etoile_etiolee Tue 26 Jan 2016 09:29PM UTC

I think the major issue with this post is that it's very confusing. I post here but I am not necessarily aware of all the terms and service and FAQ rules -well, I don't know them by heart, so the changes made seem confusing to me because some issues that necessitated those changes are not addressed, especially about the emails policy change.
I think the post should be made clearer.
I post everything here and so far I've been very satisfied with ao3 and the way it works. Thank you for all the hard work you do to give us such a wonderful website.

Comment Actions
- Thread
the_dragongirl Tue 26 Jan 2016 10:20PM UTC

I posted this on the announcement on the OTW's site as well, but it seems like thinks are being responded to more over here, so I thought I'd repost this:
I am honestly incredibly uncomfortable with the idea of challenge runners and collection maintainers being given direct access to the registered email addresses of people participating in the challenge. For the sake of prompt checking of my ao3 messages, I have my ao3 account associated with my main email, which is easy to attach to my real, non-fandom identity. I do not use this email for any other fandom purposes, however, and would not want it given out to challenge runners under any circumstances.
And even if participants are alright with the specific individuals who are running a challenge or collection having their emails address, since that list of people can change or be added to after the fact with no notice to people whose works are in that collection, the list of people who have access to their email address can change without notice. Unlike staff members or volunteers who could access this information now, there is no vetting or accountability if they should choose to use this information in ways not associated with the challenge or collection they run, so this seems very ripe for potential abuse.
Would it be possible for challenge runners and collection maintainers to be given a way to message participants without being given direct access to their address instead?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Morbane Tue 26 Jan 2016 10:43PM UTC
  
  If it were a matter of "get your coding wish", I'd personally love it if, rather than automatically displaying the participant's email next to their sign-up, AO3 sign-ups included a field in Offers for a contact address.
  This would mean it was
  a) entered deliberately by the participant, with an understanding of what it would be used for that was based on THAT exchange's rules
  b) current
  c) adjustable for the collection owner's preferences (ie, they could say if tumblr or dreamwidth was an acceptable alternative to email).
  It would be a non-matchable field, similar to the "dear author letter" field but only visible to the collection owners/maintainers.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Wed 27 Jan 2016 01:52AM UTC
  
  Hi the_dragongirl,
  Moderators have always had access to participants' emails. Since the Archive's inception, we have had no reports of abuse. However, since this fact was not clear we are editing the Terms of Service to make this more transparent and to ensure that moderators understand they can and will be held responsible for abusing this feature.
  There are no immediate plans to change this functionality. If we introduce something like private messaging we may reevaluate and add that as an option, however that is dependent on several variables and it may not be feasible.
  Matty
  AO3 Abuse
  
  Last Edited Wed 27 Jan 2016 01:54AM UTC
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
3. 1. Ryo Hoshi (Hoshi_Ryo) Fri 29 Jan 2016 02:10AM UTC
    
    Private messaging would actually be ideal for this, especially since sometimes there are comments I'd like to leave on fics but feel would not be best done publicly, if nothing else because it may be a gaff I feel is unintended and thus would like to give the person the option of silently fixing it without a comment thread others might (have) see(n).
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
Account Deleted Tue 26 Jan 2016 11:06PM UTC

Can we get a feature where we can Block certain Anons from commenting on our work? I've been getting comments to kill myself and I'm pretty sure that if I wanted to, I should be able to have the option to block this person.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Wed 27 Jan 2016 01:54AM UTC
  
  Hi SoheiNICHA,
  Unfortunately, blocking specific anon individuals is not possible. They can simply use a different email address and continue harassing people. However, you can alter the privacy settings on your works so that they are only visible to logged-in users, or disable anonymous commenting, which ensures that only registered Archive users can comment on the work. There is also comment moderation, which will prevent new comments from appearing publicly on your work unless (and until) you approve them.
  If you feel that another user is harassing you, please contact Abuse at the form linked at the bottom of every page: http://archiveofourown.org/abuse_reports/new
  Matty
  AO3 Abuse
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Account Deleted Wed 27 Jan 2016 02:22PM UTC
    
    Is there no way to block an IP without being able to look at it?
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Wed 27 Jan 2016 11:27PM UTC
      
      Hi SoheiNICHA,
      People use a variety of different IPs throughout the day - home, work, school, coffee shops, libraries, etc. It's also incredibly simple to change or hide one's IP. Blocking an IP does nothing to solve the problem since they can just move to a different one.
      Matty
      AO3 Abuse
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
bikedancelaugheat Wed 27 Jan 2016 01:23AM UTC

Would you expand on what "We or the services we use may store or process your personally identifying information in data centers" means, please? And how might the location of the data centers affect the privacy of the personal information stored there?
Also, I think the planned change to the "Can orphaning be reversed?" answer is a mite confusing. If I read that version, since it says "Usually not" and "in most cases," I would wonder what that odd circumstance is that occasionally makes reclaiming orphaned works possible. I think taking out [But orphaning may be irreversible in some cases,] and replacing it with Orphaning is irreversible in most cases, would be better. (You might change the bit referring to that odd circumstance, to clarify current practice or direct the user elsewhere for an explanation, but please don't leave it out entirely.)
And if there are methods for taking your name off a fic other than orphaning, as SailorPtah mentioned in a comment above, it would be nice to hear about them in that section. Even if you say, "We don't/can't officially guarantee these, but here are some options users have created."
Thank you for all your hard work!
[Edited to close a missed bold tag, oops ;) ]

Last Edited Wed 27 Jan 2016 01:27AM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. AO3_Policy_and_Abuse (Official) Wed 27 Jan 2016 11:45PM UTC
  
  Hi bikedancelaugheat,
  The privacy changes were made to address various laws in various countries. In practice, this changes little on our end. Personal data is kept confidential unless we are legally bound to release it.
  Everything in brackets will be removed. The new orphaning FAQ will say:
  Can orphaning be reversed?
  Usually not. Orphaning is irreversible in most cases, so please use this option carefully.
  The only way to ensure anonymity is to orphan a work. This removes all identifying information - not even archive admins can view who orphaned a work. Anonymous collections are not risk free and as such we can not officially endorse them. People are welcome to use them, but they do need to realize that archive admins and collection mods can see who created them. If the collection mod decides to reveal all the works in the collection they can. This is not a violation of the Terms of Service and we will not intervene.
  Matty
  AO3 Abuse
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Anon Author (Guest) Thu 28 Jan 2016 01:36AM UTC
    
    I mean, you could always provide us with a truly anonymous option that doesn't require giving up control of our intellectual property. I know that many, many people have asked you for anon psueds and the ability to post anonymously even without an anonymous collection. For some reason you're adamantly opposed to either option.
    A side account works, but have you considered that people may want to access all of their works from the same dashboard and stats page? Plus, if one person posts all of their embarrassing dirtybadwrong fic on the same side account it could actually be pretty easy to identify them if the side account has the same grouping of tiny obscure fandoms.
    Why are you so obsessed with pushing orphaning as the only option? It's only the only option because you refuse to consider the other options that users suggest.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. Ryo Hoshi (Hoshi_Ryo) Fri 29 Jan 2016 02:21AM UTC
      
      From their answers, I think it's also the only one that really can be a truly anonymous option--and, frankly, they've got a point that if you want to maintain control of your intellectual property there needs to be some relatively reliable way to determine that you're you.
      Basically, if you don't want to ever be connected to your dirtybadwrong fic? The only sure way IS to have them scrub it of anything that IDs it as yours.
      Plus, using the same dashboard and stats page opens you up to accidentally outing yourself. If remembering the password your problem, use a different profile in your browser or a different browser for that account. If you're concerned about 'same grouping of tiny obscure fandoms,' break up your aliases for dirtybadwrong fic between them--a sane option anyway if you're posting them not just to AO3.
      I could see allowing somebody to have pseudonyms not obviously connecting back to their main account, since I don't see a practical reason for not allowing that--they'd not necessarily be true anon pseuds and (as I noted already) the risk of accidentally outing yourself would remain, but it'd be useful if you really don't want to make it easy for somebody to realize an old pseudonym of yours is yours but still want to have your old works here.
      
      Last Edited Fri 29 Jan 2016 02:23AM UTC
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. bunnymcfoo Wed 03 Feb 2016 11:28PM UTC
      
      You being ashamed of your kinks is hardly the archive's problem. Make yourself a damn sock account and suck it up, buttercup - or better yet, get over your issues and own your fannish experience.
      
      Last Edited Wed 03 Feb 2016 11:28PM UTC
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
  3. Just Curious (Guest) Thu 28 Jan 2016 06:39PM UTC
    
    Thank you for answering the many questions popping up. I have a couple more for you. I'm curious to know which laws in which countries require storage of personal data. And how long is this personal information store? Is it months? Years? Google style forever?
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  4. 1. urtin Sun 31 Jan 2016 12:30AM UTC
      
      Google remembers everything. Only you control the amount of personal information you put in the internet. Only you control the safety of your email: either it's public or not. Only you control the associations between you and your fanfiction. You don't want it to be plagiarised? Don't ever post it online.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. Just Curious (Guest) Thu 04 Feb 2016 05:18AM UTC
        
        Thank you for the summary on public information, the internet, and google policy/practices. Unfortunately, this doesn't answer either of my questions which were about the countries laws and AO3's policy, specifically how long they retain information. If you have actual answers to these questions, please let me know.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
    3. RebeccaTushnet Thu 04 Feb 2016 11:45PM UTC
      
      I'm not sure exactly what you're asking--perhaps you could clarify? Personal information may include email addresses, IP addresses, etc. As long as a person has an account with AO3 (and a reasonable amount of time thereafter, until the databases are fully updated), we will have information associated with that account. In addition, in cases involving abuse or potential legal claims, we may preserve information for internal or legal recordkeeping even after it is no longer publicly available.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    4. 1. Just Curious (Guest) Sat 06 Feb 2016 07:49PM UTC
        
        Okay. Thanks for that info. It does answer some of my question. So in the cases of abuse or legal claims the information may be kept for a long time as would be expected. I guess the question would be a two parter, now. What's "a reasonable time thereafter" after an account is no longer held? And how long is whatever information collected for persons without an account held if they are not involved in abuse or legal claims?
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. RebeccaTushnet Sat 06 Feb 2016 09:02PM UTC
        
        After account deletion, it depends--we try for two weeks, but can't guarantee that. IP address information about a visit unconnected with an account may exist in our logs for varying periods of time, depending on when backups are run. I'm sorry I can't be more specific, but we don't try to track our users for commercial purposes. We use the logs for diagnostic/trouble-shooting purposes.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Just Curious (Guest) Sun 07 Feb 2016 07:01PM UTC
        
        Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
Nyx_Ro Wed 27 Jan 2016 04:09PM UTC

OT: The TPP is poised to chip away at the free internet, handing over the the control of information to for-profit corporate interests. Please sign this.
https://dontsignthetpp.net/

Comment Actions
- Thread
lovetheirloves Wed 27 Jan 2016 07:13PM UTC

The maintainer can see prompts as well as the username and email address that participants use to sign up, in case the maintainer needs to communicate with participants.
You may wish to clarify this is only for challenges/collections where users have to sign up to participate. Many collections do NOT require users to sign up in order to include their works in the collection, and in those cases, the moderators of the collection do not have an email address for participants. We regularly run activities that involve users including their works in the collection but which don't require sign-ups, and we cannot see any contact information for the participants!

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. RebeccaTushnet Thu 04 Feb 2016 11:46PM UTC
  
  Thank you--we will definitely do so.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
BardsAmbrosia Sat 30 Jan 2016 12:28AM UTC

A messenger would be coooool

Comment Actions
- Thread
Kotik Sat 30 Jan 2016 12:30AM UTC

>We or the services we use may store or process your personally identifying information in data centers which may be located in the United States or other countries
Sorry folks, but you know where your data centers are. So why not say exactly where? Personally, I'm not too comfortable with having my data stored in the USA, a country that makes Russia look like a beacon of freedom. So could we please get clarification WHERE EXACTLY your data centres are right now?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. theLiterator Thu 04 Feb 2016 11:27AM UTC
  
  If you aren't comfortable with having your data stored or communicated through the USA you need to invent a new internet.
  Not that I disagree with your assessment, I just think that it's unrealistic to expect that your data not be processed/stored in ways that won't give the US Government a right to peek at it.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. RebeccaTushnet Thu 04 Feb 2016 11:48PM UTC
  
  Thanks for your feedback. As a matter of policy, we don't identify the third-party services we contract with. However, if you do not want your data stored in the US, you should delete your AO3 account. (Just to clarify: sadly, we lack the infrastructure to have our own data center, though we can certainly dream.)
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
TexasDreamer01 Sat 30 Jan 2016 09:32AM UTC

I like the idea of making the ToS for orphaning works more succinct - the reversibility is a case-by-case basis, and I imagine it's likely to pop up during discussion with the Support team, anyway (though updating the relevant FAQ and elaborating upon some common situations a person might run into would be handy), since the ToS is intended to state policy and not explain the policy to such lengths.
The data center bit could use some clarification - is the data being stored by region, i.e. a US user having their data stored in the US, or is there no method of sorting? Placing a user's data in a center where they're a foreigner crops up all sorts of privacy issues and is a valid concern. At the very least, notifying us of which country/region our data is stored would be a good idea.
As for a challenge maintainer's access to a participant's email, it's generally good practice for a user to have an email specific for their fandom work, and giving the okay for them to be contactable via email kind of... implies that the email would be used for contact. If the person isn't okay with their email being used as a contact point (given that AO3 doesn't have a PM system currently), then they either shouldn't participate in the given challenge/collection/what have you, or have an email specific for fandom-usage.
Regardless, if the email is visible to the maintainer, then perhaps changing the button itself to "email so-and-so" (if it's not so, already) would allay those concerns whilst still maintaining a viable line of contact, so that only AO3 knows the precise email address. Since AO3 has a means for cross-posting (not from FF, admittedly, given their own ToS), why not look into options for a variety of contact? Being able to choose means of contact in case of participating in a challenge - and for putting on one's profile - would be nice, especially since not everybody uses email as their main mode of contact online; a tumblr or twitter or Facebook option would be neat, though I imagine there would need to be a bunch of work done in that regard to figure out precisely how to manage that, and for the time being people can just disallow giving their email to the challenge maintainer (if possible)/not participating in the challenge at all or finding a way to give the maintainer an alternate, preferred contact privately.
Along those lines, why not implement a toggle function for displaying username on a work when posting? It can be put with the rest of the options when posting a work, and still allow for a user to keep track of the work/claim authorship (via AO3 having the requisite information because it would be a toggle function, just like the "email so-and-so" idea)/respond to reviews without connecting their identity to the work in question. Granted, I agree with allowing someone to keep works gifted to them even if the gifter no longer wants to be associated with the work itself (because honestly, giving someone something and then deleting it is a bit gauche; why gift someone something if you don't intend to keep it up for them to see? Orphaning is more practical, in this case), but having this as an option might smooth some of these problems over; it would be akin to sending an ask to someone and ticking the anon box before sending.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. RebeccaTushnet Thu 04 Feb 2016 11:49PM UTC
  
  Thanks for your suggestions--they sound attractive. I'm afraid this post is about the terms of service, but I strongly suggest you send them on to Support, because they keep track of requests in order to help our hard-working coders set priorities.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Amorette Sat 30 Jan 2016 05:51PM UTC

As someone who writes fan fiction for fun and writes non-fiction for pay, I can simplify control over a work. If you want to maintain absolute control, NEVER post it on-line. Anywhere. Ever. I would NEVER post one of my professional works anywhere on-line except the website my editor uses. I am paid for it there and no where else. If your work is that important, don't share it until you professionally publish. EVER.
Now that takes all the fun out, since no one can give you kudos, but it is the only absolute legal way to protect your rights. If you want to publish professionally, don't post those potential works on-line. Yes, some works like "Shades of Grey" moved from fandom to professional but those are rare exceptions. And, based on the quality of Shades, should be even more rare.

Comment Actions
- Thread
crazykookie Mon 01 Feb 2016 01:18AM UTC

We or the services we use may store or process your personally identifying information in data centers which may be located in the United States or other countries.
So, is AO3 selling our personal information to 3rd parties or something??

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Artemystic Mon 01 Feb 2016 08:55AM UTC
  
  It is just being stored by a 3rd party.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. crazykookie Mon 01 Feb 2016 05:13PM UTC
    
    Why is it being stored, though?
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. NerineLunaCyran Mon 01 Feb 2016 10:06PM UTC
      
      Probably because your email address that is coupled to your account needs to be stored somewhere, otherwise it wouldn't be coupled to your account? Basically every website stores information on its users, that's how having an account works.
      
      Last Edited Mon 01 Feb 2016 10:06PM UTC
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. RebeccaTushnet Thu 04 Feb 2016 11:50PM UTC
        
        Thanks for your feedback. Although we own the servers on which the AO3 as a whole is hosted, we aren't able to perform every useful function on our own servers, including things like disaster recovery backups and spam detection. We do not and will not sell your information, but these services may hold or process it as part of maintaining or improving the site. We attempt to ensure that all third-party providers have acceptable privacy policies, and we don't share your data with anyone who would sell it to others, but we can't control their security, and we can't list every service we might use in advance. The ToS always tried to make that clear, but we are trying to make it more clear.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
Offwithherhead (Guest) Mon 01 Feb 2016 11:33PM UTC

What happened with the fic I had subscribed to?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. NerineLunaCyran Tue 02 Feb 2016 11:29AM UTC
  
  It's hard to give an answer to that when you don't give any other information. Most likely scenario if it's no longer on your list (which I assume is why you're asking what happened to it?) is probably that the author deleted it, I'm afraid.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread

AO3 News