Slashdot Mirror
Does Google Own Your Content?
mjasay writes "ZDNet is reporting that Google has a potentially worrisome clause in its User Agreement for Google Apps. Namely, that any content put into the system and 'intended to be available to the members of the public' is free game for Google, reserving the right for Google 'to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service offered by Google.' Google may not be evil, but giving it these (and other) rights to one's data should be ringing alarm bells in the Google Apps user base."
If you make your content available to the public via Google Services then Google can use your content anyway they see fit to promote their business.
Interesting. Does this include promoting Google's partners? (sounds like it does) What if you are in direct competition with a Google partner? What if your business is Internet search or online advertising? What if your content criticizes Google? What if Google expands their business to new areas after you publish your content (e.g. you publish content and then they change their business and you WOULD NOT HAVE published your content had they been in that business at the time of publication)? Sounds like we're seriously entering the golden age of lawyering...
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
Some time ago, when Google first announced this Apps product, I signed up for an account to take a look at what they had offered. Seeing as how I host my own vanity domain, I didn't see much use for it, and I decided to just ignore it until I needed it in case a machine here took a dump.
I ended up logging on and dropping the account. I also made the decision that until that term in their license changes, I probably will not consider Google Apps for anything else.
Now, I wonder how many other accounts will close?
I thought not. I think the concern is that the wording is ambiguous. As usual, the Slashdot headline takes the most sensationalist way of approaching the issue, but at its core it's a question of whose intent you're talking about. Is it, "services which are intended to be available to the members of the public," or, "content which is intended to be available to the members of the public?"
My sense is that Google means the latter (as most of us would expect), but the wording is ambiguous, and it might well serve them better to revise the agreement to eliminate that ambiguity.
If you're putting stuff up for the public through Google, about the worst Google can do to you is not show it. If you're worried about what the public (which includes Google and its partners) will do with your content, you shouldn't have put it up in the first place. (Google doesn't actually own your content, just the rights to distribute it however they wish).
Admittedly, Google not showing people your stuff could be a problem- but I think all hosting companies should reserve the right not to show anything they don't like (after refunding your money), because that's a lot easier than listing a bunch of things they won't show (like child porn and copyright infringement) so when they find things later they don't want to show (like ads for illegal services, phishing sites, snuff films, etc.) they can get rid of it without changing the contract.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
How do you expect a corporation to display your material online if you don't give them permission to do so?
Google doesn't own something just because you give them permission to display it publicly, oh my goodness, what a stupid article.
ICQ:
"You agree that by posting any material or information anywhere on the ICQ Services and Information you surrender your copyright and any other proprietary right in the posted material or information. You further agree that ICQ Inc. is entitled to use at its own discretion any of the posted material or information in any manner it deems fit, including, but not limited to, publishing the material or distributing it." (ICQ Policy)
AIM:
"However, by submitting or posting Content to public areas of AIM Products (for example, posting a message on a message board or submitting your picture for the "Rate-A-Buddy" feature), you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. Once you submit or post Content to any public area on an AIM Product, AOL does not need to give you any further right to inspect or approve uses of such Content or to compensate you for any such uses. AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating Content posted to public areas of AIM Products." (AIM Terms of Service)
MSN:
"For materials you post or otherwise provide to Microsoft related to the MSN Web Sites (a "Submission"), you grant Microsoft permission to (1) use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission, each in connection with the MSN Web Sites, and (2) sublicense these rights, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. Microsoft will not pay you for your Submission. Microsoft may remove your Submission at any time. For each Submission, you represent that you have all rights necessary for you to make the grants in this section. To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Microsoft may monitor your e-mail, or other electronic communications and may disclose such information in the event it has a good faith reason to believe it is necessary for purposes of ensuring your compliance with this Agreement, and protecting the rights, property, and interests of the Microsoft Parties or any customer of a Microsoft Party." (Microsofts Terms of Use)
One thing I'm wondering about that would be enforcement.
Say I write a story - and, by extension, own it - and I publish it someplace where Google's non-exclusive transfer (or the non-exclusive transfer of anyone else with similar clauses) applies. Time passes, and some third party files my name off what I right and starts doing something actionable copyright-wise with it.
Who would get to go after that legally? Would it be me, Google (or whoever), both, whoever managed to shoot for it first...?
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
"Who would get to go after that legally? Would it be me, Google (or whoever), both, whoever managed to shoot for it first...?"
Interesting question. Both would likely have a cause of action as both have the right, but once one engages, joinder could prevent the other (after a while).
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.