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."
Uh Oh! (Score:5, Funny)
... including its Picasa photo service ...
You mean they own my bestiality pics?
And my death threats?
... and they aren't even going to be from me!
Man, they are going to have some serious legal issues
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Don't worry, they also own the free amateur legal advice I posted on my blog.
- RG>
Re:Uh Oh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Go ahead and post them, chances are the cops will be knocking in a few hours/days, and you'll have been hoisted by your own petard.
Not a story (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this a story? The language is fairly common among services that allow user materials to be uploaded. It has been in Google's standard TOS for years now. The only reason why it came to light with Chrome is that the language didn't make a lick of sense in that context. Since you weren't uploading user-generated content, Google's TOS read as if they auto-claimed the entire internet.
"View this page and it's ours! MWHAHAHA!"
Not only is that an unenforcable statement, but it's a downright ridiculous statement, as well. That is why it was removed. Nothing more, nothing less.
The only difference I see between the standard content license that Google uses and the license of their competitors is that many competitors choose to limit the license to the length of your membership. After such a time they "make a reasonable effort" to remove any content you request removed. It's up to you, the consumer, to decide if a perpetual license is more bothersome than a "best effort" license limited to the period that you maintain membership.
Re:Not a story (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's official explanation to why it was in Chrome was "Ah, it was left there as remains from our other services. Sorry, we'll remove it from that one.
And a week later, Slashdot realizes that it actually is in Google's other services.
Re:Not a story (Score:4, Insightful)
Google's official explanation to why it was in Chrome was "Ah, it was left there as remains from our other services. Sorry, we'll remove it from that one.
And a week later, Slashdot realizes that it actually is in Google's other services.
My question is why was this in ANY of their services TOS? I thought Googles motto was "Don't be evil"? Well to me trying to get free rights to others content is evil, I don't care if that is how other similar services are setup either, Google should be different or lose the motto.
If I were to setup something like Picasa then I would want to word the TOS in a way such that the ALL rights to uploaded pictures stay with the original owner. I think hijacking those rights (what percentage of users actually look at the TOS?) in a stupid legal document is just about the definition of evil (even if nothing is done with the user content)!
IMO no company should use user content for promotional purposes or for any other reason without explicitly asking them first. Having junk like this in the TOS just allows companies to have a free supply of advertising materials among other uses.
Re:Not a story (Score:5, Funny)
"We're Google. We know where you live. In a, like, totally non-evil way."
Re:Not a story (Score:4, Insightful)
We know where you live
... what porn you search for, any medical conditions, who you email, who you IM and what you say, what regions you look at on maps.google.com, who views your pictures, what ads you click on, etc.
If I ever went for an interview at Google, I wouldn't need to tell them a thing - they can just look it up, and crunch it through some sort of suitability formula.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think they'd job the application process entirely. Based on usage patterns and IPs they can determine largely who is who and find their best cantidates.... Though really Google is probably looking for the neurotic /.er that cycles IPs and creates multiple identities to hide himself from 'them'.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not a story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a story (Score:4, Interesting)
The rights do stay with the uploader. But Google needs a license from the uploader to display the material at all - and that's the purpose of the relevant segment of the TOS. As for promotional images, it'd make sense that they can take screenshots and etc of their service, no? If you want a service that promises never to commercialize your content ever, you should be paying for it. And the promotional rights terminate as well "within a commercially reasonable period after such Content is removed
Yes, I understand the need for the clause to allow the site to function as intented but on the other hand I do have a problem when there is a free for all grab of ALL user content which can be used for ANY purpose. If the site is a photo-sharing site then the TOS should only try to retain a license to display images and maybe text, etc.
As to the promotional aspect I think it is lame of them to say they need the rights to all user content. Just have an employee make an account for promotional purposes, problem solved. If a user has a page that is really out of the ordinary and would work for promotional purposes then ASK THEM for permission, if the site is free they probably will allow usage of the content and if not oh well.
Google specifically states in the UTOS a license to use user content for promotional purposes in section 11.1 and that is my biggest gripe:
By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. 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.
State what you need to state in the TOS to let the site FUNCTION, but adding in extra rights by default in order to get free promotional material among other uses is BS.
Re:Not a story (Score:5, Insightful)
Truly. If the TOS for a service doesn't work for you, use something else instead. Not reading and understanding the TOS is on you, not them. It's not like Google is trying to hide what they are doing from anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that if someone does not agree with the TOS to turn elsewhere. I just find it odd that a company that "Does no evil" adds extra license rights in the TOS to use ANY and ALL user content for reasons other than the FUNCTIONING of the site. Specifically stating the license grants them promotional usage of all user content seems pretty evil in my eyes, they do not need that right in order for the site to funtion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Specifically stating the license grants them promotional usage of all user content seems pretty evil in my eyes, they do not need that right in order for the site to funtion.
"Function". "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
You seem to think that "function" means "satisfy the user's intended purposes". What "function" really means, from the service provider's perspective, is "make the company money", and promotion is a critical and non-negotiable part of that function
Re: (Score:2)
I don't feel they owe me anything, I only use Gmail and Google search. I still don't think it is right to grant a non-exclusive license to ALL content a user creates. A license to use the content in order for a site to function is fine, since the site obviously needs permission to serve the content up, but beyond that permission should be asked explicitly, not thrown deep in the TOS. A non-explicit license to use user content for promotional purposes also is rediculous IMO.
In response to your "pay for th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The rights do stay with the uploader. But Google needs a license from the uploader to display the material at all - and that's the purpose of the relevant segment of the TOS. As for promotional images, it'd make sense that they can take screenshots and etc of their service, no? If you want a service that promises never to commercialize your content ever, you should be paying for it. And the promotional rights terminate as well "within a commercially reasonable period after such Content is removed"
That was refreshing to hear. Take your free stuff and move along. All paying customers please complain in an orderly manner.
Re: (Score:2)
> The rights do stay with the uploader. But Google needs a license from the uploader to
> display the material at all - and that's the purpose of the relevant segment of the TOS.
Such a license is implicit in the act of uploading the material that you know is going to display it. If an explicit license were necessary Usenet would not exist.
I don't see why it matters, though. Surely no one uploads anything important to any of these advertising-supported services.
Re: (Score:2)
True enough.
But such an implicit license would not gice Google the rigth to use your material for other purposes, such as advertising their service.
So you're right; Google doesn't "need" this to be able to operate the service, that's nonsense.
They "need" it to be able to use your material for purposes OTHER than operating the service.
Re:Not a story (Score:4, Insightful)
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." See how neatly that takes care of the situation WITHOUT claiming any rights to your work?
Claiming unrestricted copyright gives Google better legal protection, that's really the only reason they chose that instead of your version. The extent of "the scope of the service you are being provided" can be argued about in court, a blanket right to reproduce can not.
Re: (Score:2)
The license grants them the "right" to make unrestricted "copies". You retain ownership of the work, but you give Google the right to make and use copies it.
Re: (Score:2)
...but you STILL retain copyright, and they don't.
Okay, you're right, I finally did my homework and I was using the word "copyright" to mean something it doesn't.
Yes, Google gets an non-exclusive (and presumably irrevocable) license to copy and distribute your content, but not the actual copyright.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read the particular paragraph you're bitching about, or are you just bitching?
If you were to upload content but retain all rights, Google doesn't have the right to show said content to the world. In other words, it'
Re: (Score:2)
Because Google services, in order to function properly, need to copy and redistribute user-uploaded content with, in the absence of a license, could potentially be construed as a violation of copyright. The inclusion of the license in the TOS protects them against lawsuits for the normal operation of services which involve sharing material which may be protected by copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I were to setup something like Picasa then I would want to word the TOS in a way such that the ALL rights to uploaded pictures stay with the original owner. I think hijacking those rights (what percentage of users actually look at the TOS?) in a stupid legal document is just about the definition of evil (even if nothing is done with the user content)!
All rights do stay with the original owner. Google simply has a _license_ to them, which is necessary to publish them as search results. If you do not want them to show up in searches, a Google picture service probably ain't the best place to post them.
Furthermore, if you're not remotely interested in the TOS, odds are your photographs aren't worth diddly squat anyway, especially since Google has billions to choose from. Why yours? They suck! ;p
Re: (Score:2)
I understand they need the license for distribution and displaying of content, that is fine in my eyes and obviously needed for the service to be useful.
What I have a problem with is for example when a photo sharing site like Picasa wants a non-exclusive license to ALL user content, not just the content needed in order for the site to function. Also, Google specifically says in the TOS they have a license for PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES as well and distribution/display purposes. I don't think that is right and t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a story, it's more of an attempt to cause hysteria against Google. The sad thing is, many lemmings are going to buy into this as "new" and be up in arms, ignorantly thinking that other companies aren't doing the same with their EULAs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A simple "fud" tag would probably suffice. Please tag story "fud" :)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's really stupid to think this is any kind of a story. These TOS are not about Google appropriating anyone's intellectual property. It's just a bit of legal CYA.
Without provisions like these, it's possible to imagine an interpretation of copyright law under which Google's copies of your uploaded content constitute infringement. Obviously that's not the way Google or its users intend the law to be construed, but it's best to have these things explicitly spelled out.
Re:Not a story (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a story. It's stupid fearmongering perpetuated by blazing fuckwits who like to hop on the hate bandwagon.
These kinds of terms are necessary for services where copyrighted material is hosted. Otherwise, they don't have permission to serve your content to other users, which is the whole point of the service.
From Slashdot's terms of use [sourceforge.com]:
Everybody who thinks this is some kind of evil scheme by Google to rob content should now leave Slashdot, for they are doing exactly the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody who thinks this is some kind of evil scheme by Google to rob content should now leave Slashdot, for they are doing exactly the same thing.
Fine! I'm leaving forever! Just as soon as I retire...
Re:Not a story (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish I could mod you above 5 points.
Those terms are REQUIRED for Google to be able to display your content.
Let's examine them carefully, eh?
"By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, 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."
So, what exactly are we giving Google here?
Basically, it's a license to display the content. Hey, they sorta need that if I'm uploading photos for the purpose of them actually displaying it on the internet.
They have a "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license". Meaning that they can display those pictures without paying me for them, worldwide, forever. Okay, the irrevocable part sucks, because if I take the content offline, I'd like it to be actually taken offline, but that's a minor legal thing that's probably there because they can't guarantee that what with their caching schemes and such.
They can "reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute". Reproduction is required in order to publish/perform/display/distribute the photos. Adapt, modify, translate applies to resizing, cropping, that sort of thing.
This is a non-story, people. They are not taking the copyright away, they are asking for the legal ability to do *what you want them to actually do*. Which is basically to host your content.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"perpetual and irrevocable" avoids administrative hell. Atleast perpetual, irrevocable could possibly be changed without too much pain. I'm sure it would still cost them tons of money to restructure picassa.
Re: (Score:2)
"irrevocable excepting in cases where content has been removed by end user" or however the legalese would need to be
I've marked the tricky bit for ya.
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably they wouldn't be publicly displaying the backup, just pulling some other data off of it. If it were your account being restored, I'd hope they have a system in place to notify a user that his/her account required a restore and that anything done in the previous X days may be lost. That's the only sane way to do a restore, because those users need a chance to attempt to replace lost data before it gets purged from other systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note this:
You'll notice if you look at our other products that many of them are governed by Section 11 of our Universal Terms of Service. This section is included because, under copyright law, Google needs what's called a "license" to display or transmit content.
Re:Not a story (Score:4, Insightful)
As TFA points out, that means that Google might use your and mine pictures to publish a photo book without paying neither you nor me.
I'm not using Picasa, but if I did I'd use it to show my pictures to my friends, not to give Google the right of doing whatever they want with my content. Similar ToS apply to Google Docs too: that means that Google might mail me all your docs, after all that's part of publicly distribute but would you like it?
Google's Terms of Use are too broad and they give Google some rights that are unrelated with the service that they say are providing. This is the whole point of the article and I think that they have a story. The fact that other companies have similar ToS just makes all the story worse: it's not Google bashing, it's bashing a whole industry and it's about our privacy. I think that I'll start again to read ToS and select accurately which service to use and which not.
The docs I care about are moving out of Google Docs now.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You left out the next sentence in the UTOS for Google which specifically states they want a license to user content for PROMOTIONAL PURPOSES:
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.
How is using user content for promotional purposes required by Google in order for a service to function? (I won't even get into the free for all grab of ALL user content in
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is a story. Maybe Slashdot should explain us why it's necessary that we grant it all those rights on our posts. They seem much broader than what's required to display our posts, quote somebody else's statements, backup and move them to new servers and media as technology progresses.
Google should do the same for their license and their services.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, for this one: "incorporate it into... works in any form, media" is just in case someone wants to make a book of all posts marked "Redundant."
Re: (Score:2)
That's not quite correct--the reason it was a problem in Chrome is that users of a browser DO often upload content. For example, you yourself almost certainly used a browser to upload your post to Slashdot, and I am using a browser to upload my response.
The key is that with Chrome,
Re: (Score:2)
Two posts above you, an hour earlier. [slashdot.org]
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not a story (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not sure that kind of legalese is supposed to make sense. It's supposed to give all rights on the most possible content to the company who commissioned the writing of the ToS, whether that's enforceable or no.
My attitude is "fuck that, I'll do what the hell I want with any content that interests me and I'm too poor to be sued out of billions."
I know the standard answers to that, yes. I'm irresponsible, stupid, yadda yadda, living in a dream world where companies won't try to force me out of billions I'll never ever have a snowflake's chance in Hell to own - look at it this way : If I ever write some music or draw some piece that $EVIL_CORP steals and make billions off of, well, I couldn't have dreamt of marketing it that well.
Case in point : innovation in chocolates. I work in a small chocolate factory, we have five range of highly varied products, most of which are true innovations, as in "never been done before". And yesterday, browsing teh intartubez, I found an other, much more recent firm, that markets their products really, really well (that is, "much better than we even dream of"), based on ideas that are ALL in our production for at least several years, and much better done. (A champagne praline? How cliché. Try Marc de Champagne. A cognac praline? Come on, use Armagnac instead!). .be, and the other would entail launching our sixth range of products), but we just silently included in our normal ranges.
I suppose that, in the US, we could sue them into oblivion [if we could afford better lawyers than theirs], but we (me & my boss) just shrugged and admired the superior craftmanship of their pralines. (They're Japanese and thus can afford to produce very pretty designs that would have insanely prohibitive labour costs here in Belgium.)
And we kind of laughed to see that they were spinning their marketing around ideas we had thought of years prior (save two innovations of theirs, of which one would be insanely pricey to make here in
My point is, innovation is easy. I, for one, have ideas all the time. What about a matrix of, say, chocolate truffles made from various chocolate origins flavoured with various coffee origins? I found that one six months ago, can't wait to see someone implement it. (_We_ would do it better anyway, because we're only ever buying the best quality available in the world - that's our most basic design principle.)
Ideas are cheap. Better : they're free. And they want to be free. They're information.
But if you want to make money, you have to implement them, which is an investment, and, most importantly, market them.
How much money you make is directly proportional to how good your marketing is.
Now back on topic. If I ever produce digitizable content, that is, content that can be produced for an up-front cost and then be copied and distributed for a cost of zero, I still have to market it, no matter how good it is, or how much market penetration it can have (if I write, say, "psychedelic jazz/doom-metal for oboe and electric harp plus a violin", its penetration in the music market will be very near zero no matter how good it is). And if $EVIL_CORP steals my content, decides it will be the Next Big Thing and puts it up on heavy rotation on MTV, then they're marketing it much better than I can dream to ever do.
Now, who deserves the money? Me, or $EVIL_CORP? I'd say it's them, not me. It may be that without me there wouldn't be content, but without them, there would be no awareness of its existence. And THAT is why the companies in the RIAA don't pay their artists : they're very aware that THEY are making the MONEY. They know thhey are not making the content. And yes, no matter how much it hurts the artists' feelings, the "content of the content" does not matter - it really is work for hire. Morally ass-backwards? Yes. But that's how it works. I'm not saying that history justifies them, it's a totally different argument. I'm saying that the content itself -basically information- is worthless in dol
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're missing the point. Sending a file that you own is not fundamentally different (from a legal perspective) than downloading a file you own. In either case, Google cannot reasonably expect to claim license to the subject of these events as they are not a party to them. You may be using a browser developed by Google to perform these actions, but that is neither here nor there in a legal sense.
Effectively, the contract is unconscionable [wikipedia.org]. There is zero consideration [wikipedia.org] that would apply sufficient bala
Re: (Score:2)
I understood what you were saying. What I'm saying is that the issue you raised is merely a special circumstance of the issue I was discounting. Thus I was not being "disingenuous". Merely broad.
Thing is (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
keywords being 'soley for the purpose of displaying,distributing and promoting your blog'.
interesting point. the closest to this in google's ToS is "This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services"; which could be interpreted similarly since for a well meaning lawyer, "the services" might be "your blog/album/mail/etc"...
but who has ever heard of a well meaning lawyer?
i for one don't care about those ToS'es, but would be very nice if Google improved this specific sentence.
Re: (Score:2)
As a photographer you should be able to recognize the difference between ownership and a royalty-free license for use.
Bah (Score:3, Informative)
Don't worry, they're not evil! (Score:2)
I am fully confident that Google will maintain complete confidentiality within the marketing department of whatever their applications access concerning your confidential business data, bank account details, medical information, personal preferences in pornography and DNA sequence. And they only take ownership of my stuff for good, decent and proper ad selection. They're not evil [today.com], remember. It said so in their prospectus.
Uh, Google NEEDS those terms... (Score:3, Informative)
Otherwise, they, well, couldn't distribute your blog or your photo album!
Ah! My eyes! (Score:2)
Would it kill someone to link to an article that not only puts the entire thing on one page, and without all of those unnecessary frames, but at least has a print version that isn't exactly like the original?
hmnn (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
If you read this post, you agree to send me five dollars via paypal.
Now to wait for the profits...
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the Google TOS do not limit its rights to material that is "intended to be available to the general p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read what you're agreeing to, if you don't like it or don't understand it, don't click the effing OK button.
Geez... no wonder the I-Love-U virus did so well.
This is not news. (Score:2)
This language means if they take a screen shot of Blogger for advertising or other purposes and it happens to include your blog you don't get to sue them over it.
Re: (Score:2)
Evil vs !Evil (Score:2, Flamebait)
They are following the cues of our government:
Say you are not evil, while you do very evil things.
This behavior will not change until we forcefully insist.
Re: (Score:2)
All your bits are belong to us (Score:2, Insightful)
Once Flickr was engulfed by Yahoo, there was a similar change in their TOS. The usual we-can-use-whatever-we-want-when-we-want. I left Flickr.
Sure, it's a ridiculous TOS that probably wouldn't stand up in court. Sure, all these companies "don't mean it." Until they do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article nails it (Score:2)
First, the license is "perpetual" and "irrevocable." In other words, there is no legal remedy for a user to terminate the license. (Other Google services, like YouTube, modify the duration.)
Second, the license specifically grants Google the right to use content to "promote" services. This i
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, the TOS could allow Google to do that. Just as Yahoo's could allow it to do that, from their sites, and MS could do it, and FaceBook, and so on and so forth. It's STANDARD language in content companies' terms of use. Slashdot could put out a book, "Idiots who post here.", and use our posts as examples.
And the moral of the story is: Read the fucking license agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree that you should read the license agreement, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Back off when forced to (Score:2)
The terms have said explicitly that no copyright is claimed from the outset. It sounds like a typical journalistic response: make as many inaccurate, sensational, ad-catching claims as possible, and back off if for
You don't say.. (Score:2)
Overreaching agreements (Score:2)
I'm currently dealing with a hosting service that wants a copy of my driver's license before allowing me SSH access. Because their support operation is outsourced (not clear to where), I asked if the information would be transmitted outside the United States, and was verbally told "no". So I sent an agreement to them for signature, addressed to their general counsel:
Data protection Any personal identity information disclosed under this agreement to "APlus.net" shall be held in confidence. Said informat
These terms are neccessary! (Score:2)
For example, there is complaining about statements with the general "perpetual and irrevocable right to retain and store copies of user submitted data".
Have you ever done backups?
If you store any user-submitted content, and the user deletes part of it, are you really going to go through all of your securely stored backup media and alter these backups by deleting that content? If not, then these terms are abolutely neccesary in order to comply with the copyright legislation while maintaining your backup data
TANSTAAFL (Score:3, Insightful)
You really think Gmail's free?
Re:Nothing to see here shortly... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Nothing to see here shortly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Does Slashdot claim not to be evil? Also, compared to Google and their aggregation of information, does Slashdot matter? I'd say no on both counts. Google, like Microsoft and a few other companies, are unique players, and soon (within the next 10 years) I suspect Google will be operating under at least the same level of review that Microsoft does in both the US and EU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose [today.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, my comparison is not silly, for anything you post to Slashdot (or any other SourceForge property) is subject to the same terms. Including things that you might have an expectation of privacy on. SourceForge's terms are a blanket, just like Google, and therein lies the comparison.
Google has also stated in it's "Legal Terms" section of thei
Re: (Score:2)