Nearly.
stupid wording said:
Firstly they're only saying that users who are lawyers grant them the licenses when it should be all users (I realise what they were trying to say, but that is the effect of their words).
Secondly 'here and only here' could be read to refer to the copyright notice page, which is obviously stupid.
Thirdly they don't state that the license is royalty free - so you could start charging them
Fourthly, they limit it to words so if you post a photo that you took then that would not be covered by their copyright policy.
Fifthly it's not stated that the license is worldwide - I'm sure if it went to court it would be inferred from the international nature of the site, but it's still a liability they've left themselves open to.
Sixthly no sub-license provisions are stated, which could get them in to bother if they sub-contract some of the site, merge with another site etc.
Seventhly(??), they say on their legal page that 'Please note that all material on this site - unless otherwise stated - is copyright © urban75 1996-2004', which is clearly wrong as there's no accompanying notice for user generated content.
Eigthly(??), notice that copyright notice says 1996-2004 - technically you don't have to state this, but if you're going to at least get it right
Ninthly, they don't have a clause dealing with jurisdiction and, given that their provisions are patchy and look like they're based on UK CDPA provisions, may not work at all in some countries
I'll stop there because every time I look at it I see something else wrong. They've just put up words...lots and lots of words... that are entirely meaningless or, at the very least, don't do what they want them to.
