Google Claims User Content In Multiple Products 166
An anonymous reader writes "Google last week removed some language in its Chrome browser's terms of service that gave the company a license to any material displayed in the browser, but that language remains in several other Google products, including its Picasa photo service and its Blogger service."
Re:Nothing to see here shortly... (Score:5, Informative)
Bah (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not a story (Score:2, Informative)
Correct. In the United States and in any country honoring the Berne Convention, unless someone signs a agreement specifically stating what works are being transferred, how much they are being compensated for transferring the work, and then files that with the Copyright Office of jurisdiction, it doesn't matter what Google and their army of 'dimwitted lawyers' think they can get away with. There's no way to 'automatically transfer' all your works to Google by a click-through agreement that you most likely have not even read.
Re:Thing is (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the terms apply to Google's web version of Picassa; not to the fat client. For that purpose, the terms make perfect sense the moment you put an ounce of thought into it. Without the license (either expressed or implied), Google couldn't distribute (e.g. transmit it to a web browser) because that would be a copyright violation.
And, for clarity, you don't transfer ownership of your copyrights and give Google a LICENSE for a very specific purpose:
Re:Thing is (Score:4, Informative)
So you went with WordPress which has this in their ToS:
"By submitting Content to Automattic for inclusion on your Website, you grant Automattic a world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting your blog."
Which is the same thing Google is saying. Every blog/photo/user-created-content service out there has to have that language in their ToS, else they couldn't serve your data. The only way around it is to host the data on your own server.
Uh, Google NEEDS those terms... (Score:3, Informative)
Otherwise, they, well, couldn't distribute your blog or your photo album!
Uuuh, yeah, standard language. (Score:5, Informative)
This is a story how?
A few years too late.
From Slashdot's terms of use, linked there at the bottom of the page...
6. LICENSING AND OTHER TERMS APPLYING TO CONTENT POSTED ON THE SourceForge SITES:
Use, reproduction, modification, and other intellectual property rights to data stored on the SourceForge Sites will be subject to licensing arrangements that may be approved by SourceForge as applicable to such Content. For the SourceForge Site SourceForge.net, use, reproduction, modification, and other intellectual property rights to data stored in CVS or as a file release and posted by any user on SourceForge.net ("Source Code") shall be subject to the OSI-approved license applicable to such Source Code, or to such other licensing arrangements as may be approved by SourceForge.net as applicable to such Source Code.
With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("SourceForge Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SourceForge. In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
With respect to Content posted to private areas of the SourceForge Site SourceForge.net (e.g., private development tools or mail), the submitting user may grant to SourceForge or other SourceForge.net users such rights and licenses as the submitting SourceForge.net user deems appropriate.
Content located on any SourceForge-hosted subdomain which is subject to the sole editorial control of the owner or licensee of such subdomain, shall be subject to the appropriate license applicable to such Content, or to such other licensing arrangements as may be approved by SourceForge as applicable to such Content.
From Picasa's Terms of Service, section 4.
Your Rights
Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Picasa Web Albums. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Picasa Web Albums and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Picasa Web Albums, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content through Picasa Web Albums, including RSS or other content feeds offered through Picasa Web Albums, and other Google services. In addition, by submitting, posting or displaying Content which is intended to be available to the general public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, distribute and publish such Content for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. Google will discontinue this licensed use within a commercially reasonable period after such Content is removed from Picasa Web Albums. Google reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion.
Look at the two bold sections for Slashdot and Google respectively... looks almost exactly the same. You'll find that sentence, almost exactly the same each time, for every site that takes
Re:Thing is (Score:3, Informative)
Which is the same as Google's:
"...you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying and distributing Google services."
Re:Not a story (Score:3, Informative)
I call BS on that one.
1: If Google needs your permission to display the content, they can say "You grant Google permission to display or present the content on your behalf, within the scope of the service you are being provided."
RTFA, that is roughly what they do. The agreement goes on to day:
"This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services."
Re:Not a story (Score:1, Informative)
Please note:
Section 11.1 of the Terms of Service governing Google Docs is replaced in its entirety by:
"You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Service. By submitting, posting or displaying the Content you give Google a worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through the Service for the sole purpose of enabling Google to provide you with the Service in accordance with its Privacy Policy."
Note that this replaces 11.1 which means Google cannot publish your documents for promotional purposes.
Re:Not a story (Score:2, Informative)
No, because a "deletion" is covered by "modify". Remember, this is computer-speak that the lawyer-speak is trying to cover.
Nothing in computers actually gets DESTROYED... merely REARRANGED BITS. Delete a file, and bits are deallocated so that other bits can file that same space. Perform a virus scan, and there is a chance the bits may need to be rearranged if a virus needs to be quarantined.
If you upload a Word doc to be hosted in Google Docs, the original binary is "adapted" and "modified" to conform to Google's data structure for such files with the original binary file not being guaranteed to remain intact or be recoverable exactly, bit-for-bit, as-is.
So, really... what is being asked is that the lawyer-speak be more "humanized" to sound proper to laymen. The problem is, when you do that, then it doesn't cover the court's definition of words. Remember, just because we define a word a certain way does not mean the court defines it the same way, based on case law.
An example is the term "voluntary." To most people, this would be assumed to mean that it is "optional." So, in the case of TAX law... income tax in the United States is collected "voluntarily." This has led many fanatics to interpret this to mean "I don't have to pay taxes if I don't want to." However, this is not the way it is meant. Instead, in this context, "voluntary" is the way the courts define the fact that it is up to each citizen to calculate the amount of their own taxes and to submit their own taxes "voluntarily." This doesn't mean it is optional... it IS REQUIRED... but the collection process is a voluntary method.
So, either you're fighting to have the entire legal system re-write words and definitions and case law... or you're singling out a single corporation (Google) for some reason.