I also see that some users have the same concerns as me and I noticed that some have brought it up on networkcreators.

With many of us asking the same question don’t you think it is time you changed the terms or made them clearer.

I just signed up for a ning network and they have the same terms on sign up.

I believe that I have brought up a value point. I don’t feel comfortable putting anything on this public site and hopefully others will pay close attention to what in my opinion I feel is a right grab in your terms.

‘Maybe Marc Andreessen will have something to say regarding the terms.

Thank you for dropping by and commenting, but I’m not sure what more there is to say at this point.

I don’t think you can get any fairer than letting people choose the appropriate license for their content. It’s also important to point out that the license only applies within the Ning network; outside of Ning no licensing rights are asserted at all.

As I said on the Network Creators post on Ning in which you raised the issue, our default license for content matches the license and approach we’ve always taken to the code that we create and provide for Ning applications; we make it freely available for viewing and modification. We think that encourages learning and creativity and interesting new things. If you don’t like or agree with the default license, you can assert another license that restricts or tailors the kinds of thing that can be done with your content on Ning or within a specific private network.

I bet you the 75000 social networks that have been created on Ning and every user who belongs to a network are unaware that Ning or any user can create derivate works from their content unless they create a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs” in the text box on their profile page.

Why don’t you create a license that is more fair to authors, artist and photographers?