Google Claims User Content In Multiple Products

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."

Comments

Uh Oh!

[eldavojohn]

... including its Picasa photo service ...

You mean they own my bestiality pics?

... and its Blogger service.

And my death threats?

Man, they are going to have some serious legal issues ... and they aren't even going to be from me!

Re:Uh Oh!

[nobodylocalhost]

So if some guy post child porn on pisca, google legally own those as well? Isn't that a federal criminal offense to distribute CP? Hmmm... Legal fiasco?

Re:Uh Oh!

[pdboddy]

They retain the right to publish them. But also retain the right to refuse to publish them. It specifically says they do not own them.

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. :D

Re:Uh Oh!

[RealGrouchy]

Don't worry, they also own the free amateur legal advice I posted on my blog.

- RG>

Re:Uh Oh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Double uh oh. I used Chrome to read /. Now all your dots belong to Google.

Re:Uh Oh!

[darthjee]

I would go for more than some hours, but yes, they will be happy to smash your face down

Re:Uh Oh!

[StormDragoness]

This interpretation is utterly wrong. Google themselves have clarified that the legalese is just fancy talk for needing a license from you ( the content creator ) in order to format and present your rightful content, it still belongs to you and Google cannot use this license any other way. The language which the EULA is written in, is alien to most people, even though it looks english.

Re:Uh Oh!

[Anonymous Coward]

and you'll have been hoisted by your own petard

That's ironic because it sounds like it was his petard that got him into trouble in the first place.

Not a story

[AKAImBatman]

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

[MaXiMiUS]

I'd love to live in a reality where legalese like that did make sense.

Re:Not a story

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Not a story

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not matter, even on their services they CAN NOT HIJACK COPYRIGHT.

I dont care what their dimwitted lawyers think they can get away with. I control my works, they cant claim ownership or rights to anything I own unless I GIVE IT TO THEM. I can revoke my rights at any time and there is nothing their lawyers can do about it.

Language like that at any company is unenforceable and downright silly, I dare google to send hundreds of their lawyers at me. I know and they know they will lose if they tried to press it.

The creator of the works retains ownership and control of those works, If a company will not remove it after you revoke the rights they are in violation of the law and liable to you for damages and copyright infringement.

I.E. youtube refuses to delete your home video? sue them for $21,000,000.01CDN for copyright violation after you have your lawyer send them a cease and desist letter. Bet you $20.00 they will remove the file when your lawyers letter shows up.

Re:Not a story

[Bogtha]

How is this a story? The language is fairly common among services that allow user materials to be uploaded.

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 :

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.

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:Not a story

[Danga]

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

[morgan_greywolf]

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:Not a story

[hansamurai]

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

[David Gerard]

"We're Google. We know where you live. In a, like, totally non-evil way."

Re:Not a story

[Otto]

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:Not a story

[42forty-two42]

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"

Re:Not a story

[ubrgeek]

Agreed. I'm getting tired of people throwing out "but they said 'do no evil'." I swear, it's like the new version of Godwin's law. Don't like the TOS? Don't use the product. Find something else. And most of all, stop looking for conspiracies.

Re:Not a story

[pmontra]

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:Not a story

[reebmmm]

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:Not a story

[Danga]

I agree to a certain extent. I just have a problem when the companies say they retain rights to use the content for OTHER purposes besides the purpose of the website (ie on slashdot of course it would be stupid for a user to not want his/her comments served up).

I think it would be better to explicity allow users to select what kind of the content they give rights to when they sign up instead of a blanket statement. Just have something like below setup:

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. -- from Google UTOS section 11.1

Content to give rights to:
[ ] images
[ ] sounds
[ ] text
[ ] etc

The user could then select the content they are okay with giving rights to and then if the company wants to use content from a users account they just have to check a flag value. Also, if a user were to NOT give rights to content such as text and were signing up on a site like Slashdot then the user could be prompted that if they don't give that usage right they won't be able to use the site as intended since they won't be able to post anything.

The extra work involved to implement this should not be much and would seem much less evil to me then sneaking a clause in the TOS granting the company a non-exlusive license to EVERYTHING.

Re:Not a story

[caluml]

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:Not a story

[Anonymous Coward]

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." See how neatly that takes care of the situation WITHOUT claiming any rights to your work?

2: If Google wants to take screenshots, they can have an intern create some generic content and take screenshots of THAT. There's no need to rip off their users for free promotional material.

Google's full of shit; they got caught being sneaky. I won't use any of their services except search and Gmail (and Gmail, I'll be double careful with now).

Re:Not a story

[Shade of Pyrrhus]

Yeah, the post from Google regarding this is here.

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

[Baldrake]

Um, no. This kind of EULA works fine for slashdot where you post in order to broadcast your wise opinions. But if I write a private document using Google docs, I want and expect it to remain private. The EULA allows Google to do pretty much anything they like with it, including translating it, publishing it or using it for publicity purposes.

I'm willing to accept that this is a case of copying and pasting an existing EULA without thinking too hard about whether it makes sense in a new context. But there is a real problem, and Google should fix it.

TFA ftw?

Re:Not a story

[m3j00]

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!"

I think this is a disingenuous characterization of the concerns around the original Chrome ToS. People do upload user-created content using their web browser all the time. The original fervor around that clause in the ToS was the worry that anything submitted to any website using Google Chrome would effectively be property of Google.

Re:Not a story

[Idiomatick]

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:Not a story

[pmontra]

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:Not a story

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull. All Google has to do to CYA is say "You grant Google permission to display your content within the scope of the service that is being provided to you. You also affirm that you have the right to grant this permission."

There's no need to try for a land grab. Google's lawyers, being very expensive and talented, know this perfectly well. If something is made possible by their EULA, you can bet that's BY INTENT.

Re:Not a story

[Idiomatick]

"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:Not a story

[Danga]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

And you are a lawyer who can provide case law to back this?

Re:Not a story

[MobyDisk]

It's not a story. It's stupid fearmongering perpetuated by blazing fuckwits who like to hop on the hate bandwagon.

Glad to see that you stopped that hateful trend.

Re:Not a story

[I'm not really here]

Irrevocable should read "irrevocable excepting in cases where content has been removed by end user" or however the legalese would need to be to indicate that they can do whatever they want with it until the moment I remove it from their site. Once removed, they have to cease all actions on this material, as I have revoked their right to the material.

Re:Not a story

[Danga]

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 instead of only content required for the site to function)

Re:Not a story

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not? You use the service for free don't you. You also do realize that many other services out there do the same thing. Shit, AIM has a claim in their TOS that says they can take any message you've sent on their service and use it for promotional purposes aka they own all your transmitted IMs. Listen if you want a service that doesn't do this, pay for it, just like if you don't want someone to monetize on your IM conversations, use another service and get your friends to do so.

Re:Not a story

[mhall119]

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:Not a story

[g0dsp33d]

SHhhhh! Lets keep this on topic of how we can keep the Google did blank stories which mention chrome on the front page.

Re:Not a story

[Missing_dc]

Dude, speaking of BS, your feeling that they OWE you something for you making use of a service they are offering is ridiculous.
They are not charging you for the service. If you do something awesome with it, they should have they right to promote themselves with it and protect themselves in the process, after all, it's their tools, their servers, their dime, you are just supplying the pics of your cats fighting your collectables in your mom's basement and a little imagination.

Get over it. If you want to retain sole right to the content you created and are trying to promote on the web, PAY FOR THE SERVICE YOURSELF!
cheapskate.

Re:Not a story

[Corwn of Amber]

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!).
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 .be, and the other would entail launching our sixth range of products), but we just silently included in our normal ranges.

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:Not a story

[mounthood]

And a week later, Slashdot realizes that it actually is in Google's other services.

Hey, we've got a responsive company here. Slashdot shouldn't let that go. It's time to start demanding stranger and stranger things.

I have a right to see my Google file!

Re:Not a story

[Anonymous Coward]

But surely Google should have had their legal team actually look at the TOS before they published it? It's just downright sloppy. The statements shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Re:Not a story

[AKAImBatman]

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. There is zero consideration that would apply sufficient balance to the contract to make it enforceable in a court of law. Just as you cannot easily sign away the rights to your firstborn child, you can no more sign away valuable rights in an unfair and unnegotiated exchange for a bauble.

Re:Not a story

[Kleen13]

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:Not a story

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens when they need to access a backup tape that happens to have a copy of your image on it?

Re:Not a story

[Dragonslicer]

"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:Not a story

[m3j00]

IANAL, and you may be right about it being completely unenforcable. I wasn't arguing whether or not it was enforcable, but rather clarifying what exactly the major concern was.

Re:Not a story

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been tagging stories like this with "zomggooglemustbeevilohnoes". Shame nobody else does, that would help us sort out the conspiracy theory Google articles...

Re:Not a story

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Re:Not a story

[I'm not really here]

Of course. IANAL, so I leave it up to them rather than post something that I know is completely full of holes... that's why Lawyers get paid so much... they remove loopholes better than the average joe (usually).

Re:Not a story

[Anonymous Psychopath]

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:Not a story

[devilspgd]

Have you read the particular paragraph you're bitching about, or are you just bitching?

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.

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's a 100% private content.

Google must have the right to reproduce your work to display it at all, adapt/modify allows them to add their ads.

What exactly is the problem here? Google is doing *exactly* what you ask them to do, and they're not taking on ownership in any way.

Re:Not a story

[the_womble]

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

[harlows_monkeys]

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

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, users would be using it to upload content to sites that were NOT Google.

If users never uploaded with a browser, but just read, then it would indeed not have mattered. Even if it were interpreted as trying to claim rights to anything you viewed, it would have been ineffective, due to lack of privity between Google and the content owner. (Fundamental principle of property law, both real property and intellectual: you can't give away a right that you don't have).

But users do frequently upload, and it was those uploads that Google was (accidently) trying to claim.

Re:Not a story

[DragonWriter]

My question is why was this in ANY of their services TOS?

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.

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.

If the original owner didn't provide you with a license for any rights, then you wouldn't have legal permission to copy and redistribute the works on their behalf.

Re:Not a story

[hairyfeet]

That's simple,just hire this guy to translate! of course reading some of the EULAs that have been put out lately he is probably so backlogged you'll be put on a long waiting list,but great legalese takes time!

Re:Not a story

[AKAImBatman]

Two posts above you, an hour earlier.

Re:Not a story

[enomar]

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/update-to-google-chromes-terms-of.html "This section is included because, under copyright law, Google needs what's called a "license" to display or transmit content. So to show a blog, we ask the user to give us a license to the blog's content. (The same goes for any other service where users can create content.) But in all these cases, the license is limited to providing the service."

Re:Not a story

[John Hasler]

> 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:Not a story

[repvik]

A simple "fud" tag would probably suffice. Please tag story "fud" :)

Re:Not a story

[BIGELLOW]

I think what is more evil is when people spread these lies to get hits to their blog or news site... and then others post messages, claiming it to be true, even when it's a lie.

If you read the language, you will see that it never says Google is the OWNER of the content... only that you are giving them a LICENSE to the content. A LICENSE isn't about OWNERSHIP (that's COPYRIGHT)... it's about PERMISSION.

In other words, you still own copyright to your images in Picasa, but when you upload it to Google's website to publish to the world, you are giving Google the license to host your copyrighted content. Likewise, when you post messages to your blog on Blogger, you still retain ownership (copyright) to the content... but you are giving Google permission (a license) to publicly display your blog posts.

It is no different than writing a book (owning copyright,) then giving a publisher permission (a license) to print off several copies of your new book.

Re:Not a story

[Sinbios]

That sneaky Anonymous Coward guy!

Re:Not a story

[BIGELLOW]

In lawyer-speak... license MEANS permission. If you actually read the TOS, it only talks about a license (permission) not that Google is retaining copyright (ownership in lawyer-speak) to the work.

Re:Not a story

[BIGELLOW]

Since when does Google claim an unrestricted copyright. They aren't. They're only claiming a license. There is a HUGE difference between a license and copyright.

Think of it like a rental car place. They OWN the car. Ownership is like copyright. When they rent a car for you to drive, you get their PERMISSION. Permission is like license.

So, as long as you retain this license (permission,) you can't be arrested for stealing their car. However, the license doesn't permit you to just declare ownership over the car. It also limits what you can do with the car and how long you can have it.

So, while I do see you were defending Google in this case... at the same time, you were also spreading lies about Google.

Again, they are not claiming ownership or copyright to the work... only permission to have it on their servers when you upload it, permission to publicly display it when you click "publish," etc...

Re:Not a story

[BIGELLOW]

And that's exactly what their EULA says. Haven't you read it before posting about it?

Re:Not a story

[BIGELLOW]

I think the fundamental problem is people are confusing LICENSE with COPYRIGHT. That's the keystone of the whole debate.

When Google claims a LICENSE people are shouting "ownership"... but it's not the same thing.

COPYRIGHT=OWNERSHIP ... in Google's EULA, you retain ownership (copyright)

LICENSE=PERMISSION ... in Google's EULA, you are giving Google permission to do with your stuff what you ask them to (host it, scan it for viruses, etc...)

Re:Not a story

[BIGELLOW]

They could, yes. But they would open themselves up to every devious lawyer-wielding opportunist in the world.

I could upload a video and then wait... if Google takes it down, I can complain that I lost revenue because they took down the video that I asked them to host... and if they leave it up, I could say that I didn't want it hosted anymore and they left it up anyway.

This isn't giving them ownership... just permission... but the permission is specifically based on action. So, when I upload the content, according to the EULA, I am giving them permission to host it. If I click on a link to delete the content, I am giving them permission to delete it. Each of these actions are considered to be "perpetual and irrevocable". If they were not, then they could always resurrect something after I tell them to delete it... or they could nuke something shortly after I upload it, which would not be very good service.

The EULA protects not only Google... but me.

Re:Not a story

[mhall119]

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:Not a story

[BIGELLOW]

Only if you ask them to.

Just because you give Google permission to host your content doesn't mean you are giving them permission to TAKE this content off of your machine.

Just because you give Google permission to PUBLISH your content doesn't mean you are giving them permission to do so even if you mark something as private.

Just because you give Google permission to DELETE your content doesn't mean you are giving them permission to do so even if you ask them not to.

There are some general basis of reasonable argument that people are completely leaving out... maybe because they are not lawyers and this is wording specifically required by lawyers and courts. If the way everyone is interpreting the EULA is exactly how it would play out in court, then there would never be a need for lawyers to apply common sense to it all.

Re:Not a story

[Danga]

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 the service yourself" comment, I agree to a certain extent and if I had any content I would be posting online and worry about license issues I WOULD use a different service or none at all. Even still, I fail to see why a free website should get a free license to all user content for usage other than the functioning of the site.

Re:Not a story

[Danga]

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:Not a story

[Anonymous Coward]

My question is why was this in ANY of their services TOS?

Because using them as you email/image/video/whatever host requires them to host your email/image/video/whatever content, and that means redistributing it.

How can Picasa show your pictures to nanna if google isn't allowed to show them to nanna?

Re:Not a story

[yttrstein]

Hi, I'm the one in this comment forest that has actual contract law experience, and here's the deal:

The reason why that clause is in so many TOS contracts is because big corporations are stupid--but not in the way you think.

They're covering their OWN asses, just in case some part or whole of your content ends up, as a result of the bureaucracy inherent in all large organizations, mistakenly used in some sort of public way by that organization. Lets say for example Google wants to take out a magazine ad in Wired this month, and they decide to include in that ad some wizened soul sitting at a Blogger screen looking at some content, which is actually a screenshot taken of a blogger page by the marketing firm Google hired to do the ad. Lets say that it turns out to be some real person's page, and that the content is clearly recognizable as both real and theirs.

I'm sure you can see the trouble there.

So, there is really no problem with this clause, it's probably not enforceable for an offensive maneuver anyway, and everyone here just needs to settle down.

Re:Not a story

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[BIGELLOW]

...but you STILL retain copyright, and they don't. It's permission to perform actions on your behalf, not act on their own behalf.

Imagine walking into a copy center and handing them your book you are writing and asking them to make copies. You are giving them PERMISSION to do this copying... but you AREN'T saying it's ok for them to keep a copy and, after you walk out of the store, make some more copies.

You are giving them permission to do something on YOUR behalf and YOUR behalf ONLY... because you are still the owner... the copyright holder... and they are only a service whom you have given permission (a license) to do as you ask.

Re:Not a story

[LordKronos]

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:Not a story

[plague3106]

They're not trying to get "free rights." It's the exchange you entered into so you could use their "free email."

Re:Not a story

[BIGELLOW]

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.

Re:Not a story

[mhall119]

...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:Not a story

[dontmakemethink]

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:Not a story

[Danga]

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 that is why I will not use this service or others like it.

How hard would it be to have a checkbox during user registration allowing the user to opt in or out of at least allowing promotional use of content? Maybe also have checkboxes so the user can choose what types of content are fine to license? At least this way the user would EASILY know what they are getting into, what percentage of users do you think actually read TOS agreements and EULAs?

Sure, it would be a hassle to get setup but it wouldn't be that much work and would be a whole lot less evil then burying the details in a legal document.

Re:Not a story

[BIGELLOW]

I apologize. I didn't realize you are a practicing lawyer. Because, you see, I am.

In practice, the way Google's EULA would work is... if a user uploads their content, but chooses for the content to be "private"... it is reasonable that Google must keep it private... if the user asks for it to be published, it is reasonable that Google will publish it... and if they ask for it to be deleted, it is reasonable that Google should delete it.

Now, the EULA protects Google if they "accidentally" publish something when the user didn't ask for this... or "accidentally" deletes something that the user wanted hosted. However, since the copyright owner is still the originator of the data, Google does not have free reign to do whatever they choose willfully.

If the user chooses to delete their content and Google says "no, actually, we want to publish it"... then they can be sued... even though the EULA says they have a license to publish. The license is still a license, not ownership... which means the owner still has their rights to wave their wand of ownership. In these cases, the only thing that protects Google is an accident (that could not have been reasonably avoided,) or a technicality of the technology, which may delay certain actions. As long as these circumstances are also laid out (which they are,) or Google shows a willingness to correct a mistake within a reasonable time-frame, then Google is ok. If they willfully do something against the user's explicit wishes, they can be sued, EULA or not.

Re:Not a story

[Anonymous Coward]

It's to provide the service you idiot

Re:Not a story

[dw604]

They need your permission to host your crappy blog. Getting it yet? They need it to provide the service. Do you think they could actually steal your copyright???

Re:Not a story

[idontgno]

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.

It's a natural mistake, really. If you can sustain a long-term, mutually beneficial relationship with a company, you come to see it as a friend. The company, being a fictitious person with no personal existence, doesn't make that mistake, and would be entirely happy to throw you under the bus if it could make more money that way. (OK, not "happy"; that's too anthopomorphic. And anthropomorphizing is the root of this expectation problem.)

Google is not your friend. Google is not your buddy. Google is not your service animal (seeing eye dog, helper monkey, etc.). It's a publicly-traded for-profit corporate entity. It makes money by offering valuable services to users, but that's just part of the "how". The "why"? Making money, and that's still job 1.

Don't forget: Google doesn't has users; it has eyeballs and page impressions and clickthroughs. It's not going to go that far in compromising its ability to make profits and enhance growth, "Make money without doing evil" notwithstanding. At least they clearly and explicitly warned you, which is a step away from evil in my book.

Re:Not a story

[magus_melchior]

Probable mod if Bogtha's comment were in the Chrome TOS article: -1, Troll/Flamebait.
Actual mod for the comment in this article: +5, Insightful/Informative.

You gotta love how people assume evil when Google screws up in a rather obvious way, and then realize the incompetence when they've had a few days to think it over.

Re:Not a story

[BIGELLOW]

Well, in any case, good luck with convincing Google, Amazon, Slashdot, Yahoo, Microsoft, and countless other corporations and their teams of lawyers to change the wording that has, so far, worked well for many years.

I'd be really interested to see the outcome of your efforts and see how much better off the world is as a result. In the meantime, I applaud your efforts.

Re:Not a story

[BinaryOpty]

Good thing you're just granting them a license then.

Re:Not a story

[Eivind]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

That might have some technical limitations to it; for example, as part of a routine backup, they make an internal copy of your information. This then gets transfered to some other internal backup system (backups are, as I'm sure you'd be aware, vital) and then perhaps to magnetic tape or something at some point. It'd be insanely difficult and expensive for Google, or anyone really, to then have to go through all their multiple, redundant (if they're worth their salt as a data repository of any kind) backups to remove content whenever any user decided to delete a file. (as I think your clause is requiring) There's also the potential for all sorts of accidents to happen associated with that; say if you delete some content at a time when they've scheduled a tape backup or something...

Re:Not a story

[donnielrt]

Oh puh-leez. The reason it's in the TOS is to protect Google from lawsuits. Like they're going to claim your birthday party pictures as theirs.

Re:Not a story

[TedRiot]

The definition of upload is kind of interesting here. Or would be if the Chrome license had not been changed.

Is any HTTP-request an upload?

Re:Not a story

[DeeKay]

Remember those kids from England (or was it Ireland?) that tried to sue Facebook because professors of them found pictures THEY uploaded on there and they got into trouble because of that?

Well - That's why those Terms of Service are there! Google has a LOT of money, and as it is custom, this generates a certain urge to sue for a nice few millions within the general populace for the most braindead things...

Granted, they don't mind datamining at Google, but these passages are mainly in there to indemnify their own butts! They're not gonna sell your holiday snaps to some photostock agency, so calm down...

Nothing to see here shortly...

[charlesbakerharris]

They changed it right quick when there was any uproar over the Chrome ToS. I won't be shocked to see them move quickly to remove the clause elsewhere...

Re:Nothing to see here shortly...

[geoffspear]

I will. If you don't grant them a license to your photos when you upload them to Picasa, they can't legally display them on the service without infringing your copyright.

Re:Nothing to see here shortly...

[geoffspear]

...and, by the way, Slashdot's own TOS say that by posting here you grant "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." Sounds just like Google's terms. OMG, Slashdot is evil!

Re:Nothing to see here shortly...

[charlesbakerharris]

I didn't say "everywhere". Just elsewhere. And I don't think they're evil; I think they're actually going to try to replicate doing the right thing.

Re:Nothing to see here shortly...

[Anonymous Coward]

My own TOS says: "I have the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, exclusive, non-transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display Girlfriend (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate her in other Girlfriends in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license."

I guess that is the reason I'm a single Anonymous Coward posting nonsense on Slashdot.

Re:Nothing to see here shortly...

[The Second Horseman]

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:Nothing to see here shortly...

[LunarCrisis]

Well, yeah. . . but, really, who uses Slashdot?

Re:Nothing to see here shortly...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Sounds just like Google's terms. OMG, Slashdot is evil!

Well. This argument has come up a couple of times already.

What all the people who pointed this out may have overseen, though, is that this clause only makes sense when you intend to publish something with a service.

Only some of google's services are actually meant for publishing your data. And even then there often are provisions for not giving your files away to everyone who happens to come by.

Let's say, google introduced a new service - let's call it google backup. Let's assume, then, they didn't yet properly word additional terms of service. As was the case with Chrome for some days.

Let's then assume you back up your private files there. With this clause in their terms of service, you couldn't send them a legally binding take-down notice even if they published all of your embarrassing files on their frontpage.

I mean... not everyone want's to be a professional blogger. Not me at least.

and for anyone who thinks...

[Anonymous Coward]

And for anyone who thinks Google would never do anything bad with the power they've given themselves, I offer a contract in which I give you a free cake once a week and you let me use your house as I please as long as I don't get in your physical way. It's yours, but I may do what I like in rooms you're not currently using.

FWIW I've not cooperated with the Chinese govt on censorship, nor given paid partner status to the Church of Scientology on any of my subsidiary companies, nor yapped on about reducing the carbon footprint while buying a 767. I'm a sole trader so I don't have a board of directors with any members under investigation for stock fraud related to my company. I hope this gives me a better anti-hypocrisy track record than your dearly beloved.

Best,

AC.

Re:and for anyone who thinks...

[pdboddy]

Yet you post on slashdot, which has the same language in it's terms of services. OHNOES!!!!oneoneone

Re:and for anyone who thinks...

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was standing on my soapbox on speaker's corner then I wouldn't mind people recording what I had to say. And that's pretty much what posting on a public forum on the Interweb such as Slashdot comes down to.

Now unless you also post your search history, your e-mail, your company documents, etc., on a public site, your comparison is silly.

If your day-to-day activities depend on Google services, then Google has more sensitive information on your than your doctor. Now imagine if your doctor gave you an agreement to sign saying that they could do whatever they fucking wanted with your info and in return you receive discount treatment. And imagine that no regulations restricted what a doctor could do with information.

Wouldn't your first question be "why the hell do you want to do that?" Leaving aside all the obvious government-conpiracy uses for Google, let's imagine that you're a Yahoo or Microsoft executive who has a home account on Gmail and you carelessly discuss something related to possible takeover terms using Gmail.

Google has given itself permission to read that e-mail, and, hell, since the information contained therein might affect company revenue to the tune of billions of dollars, they'd be irresponsible not to.

Put your hand on your heart and tell me that you wouldn't read a private e-mail that would cause no individual physical or mental harm beyond a redirection of profits in the billions toward you.

Now ask Google to put its hand on its heart...

Re:and for anyone who thinks...

[pdboddy]

Every company that hosts web based email has that exact same paragraph in their Terms of Service. So by singling out Google, you're not being exactly fair.

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 their terms of use and privacy policy: We will not use any of your content for any purpose except to provide you with the Service.

Also, Google did not give itself permission to read your email. You may have, by agreeing to use their service.

And are you really claiming that no other company, except Google, could be irresponsible with the services it provides?

Re:and for anyone who thinks...

[pdboddy]

As for the "you carelessly discuss something related to possible takeover terms using Gmail" comment, it was excellently rebutted here: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=959671&cid=24948017

Thing is

[CrackedButter]

Being a stickler for the details, I wanted to use Picassa, but as a photographer I didn't want them to claim ownership over what I produce. I don't even enter competitions if the organisers want to use my imagery for all eternity. Then being a newbie blogger, I wanted to blog using googles' blogspot. Again same crappy terms discouraged me from producing my own content for somebody else to own.

Re:Thing is

[reebmmm]

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:

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. 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.

Re:Thing is

[Neon Spiral Injector]

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:Thing is

[Anonymous Coward]

"Being a stickler for the details", why didn't you notice that the terms of service don't give Google ownership over what you produce, but rather a non-exclusive license to use it in the way the service is supposed to work?

Re:Thing is

[Dynedain]

As a photographer you should be able to recognize the difference between ownership and a royalty-free license for use.

Re:Thing is

[CrackedButter]

keywords being 'soley for the purpose of displaying,distributing and promoting your blog'.

Re:Thing is

[Neon Spiral Injector]

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:Thing is

[Kz]

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:Thing is

[CrackedButter]

google services does not equal = promoting your blog

Bah

[zulater]

From how I read the TOS (INAL and all that), it seems that they just own the rights to reproduce your stuff onto other people's screens not that they own the "stuff" indefinitely or even at all. They are just covering their butt so you can't say "I never gave you permission to display this to x person".

I don't think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I know... that the cake is a lie.

Don't worry, they're not evil!

[David Gerard]

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, remember. It said so in their prospectus.

Re:GOOGLE THINKS THEY OWN YOU!

[David Gerard]

And freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.

What story?

[YourExperiment]

This is ridiculous. Google stated quite clearly when they removed this language from Chrome's terms and conditions: the reason they were there in the first place is because they were copied from the terms and conditions of another product. Now it's a story that some other Google products have the same terms and conditions as Chrome?

Uh, Google NEEDS those terms...

[nweaver]

Otherwise, they, well, couldn't distribute your blog or your photo album!

Ah! My eyes!

[CSMatt]

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

[Vexorian]

SUCH A GREAT FIND! google's service ToS say the same they did last day, I take it is very hard to understand that when you want google to host your stuff you are... giving google the right to host it, and that google would rather not have you suing them if after they restore a backup a file you deleted comes back... Oh sorry, "google is der evil!"

Uuuh, yeah, standard language.

[pdboddy]

Check just about any service that allows you to upload content. Facebook. Geocities. MicroSoft sites are covered by a blanket TOS/TOE/EULA as well, with almost the exact same language.

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:Uuuh, yeah, standard language.

[pdboddy]

All this really is, is proof that no one reads the TOS/TOE/EULA. Don't act effing surprised if you can't be bothered to read what you're agreeing to.

If you read this post, you agree to send me five dollars via paypal. :)

Now to wait for the profits...

Re:Uuuh, yeah, standard language.

[greenfield]

For what it's worth, the Picasa TOS you cite appear to be out of date; I assume you referring to the TOS here: http://picasa.google.com/web/tos.html. If you click the link "Privacy Notice" and then click back to the link "Terms of Service," you are brought to the standard Google TOS, not the older Picasa TOS. The only link I could find to the older Picasa TOS was (ironically) using Google search.

Note that the Google TOS do not limit its rights to material that is "intended to be available to the general public."

You are correct that most services have similar TOS, but they are each slightly different. And it's those slight differences that are fairly significant.

Yogurt has rights.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Sorry you can't do that. Slashdot has deemed your content as "part of it's culture" and therefore you can't remove it.

This is why you pay your way

[MikeRT]

If Google is giving you free storage and services, then you can't complain if they want to derive some value from your content. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and Google will make sure that it's not footing the bill and getting nothing out of it.

Re:This is why you pay your way

[pdboddy]

That's what gets me, people acting surprised by this. I can understand people wondering why such language was included in the TOS for Chrome, and they were lining up to jump on the "Lets bash Google" bandwagon... only to act sheepish when Google admitted it was a case of copy'n'paste-itis.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is not news.

[argent]

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:This is not news.

[pdboddy]

Only if the blog is public.

Evil vs !Evil

[matt_martin]

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:Evil vs !Evil

[pdboddy]

Uhm, which government are you talking about exactly?

Slashdot interview with Barack Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: In your book, you described your work as a "community organizer" as being frustrating and unproductive, yet now you seem to view it with rose colored glasses. Can you explain the dichotomy?

A: My opponent is once again playing the race card. They, say, he's got a funny name... he doesn't look like one of those guys on a dollar bill. He was a community organizer. It's hard to adhere to my muslim faith and turn the other cheek with these constant racist attacks.

Q: I thought you were Christian?

A: Uh, yeah, I meant they try to imply I'm muslim.

bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Google needs to "reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute" content on Picasa because that's what the Picasa service is all about. And since you own the copyright, you need to give them a license. This is no different from any other photo sharing service.

"I wouldn't do anything that was personally sensitive or security-sensitive with most any Google product

If you upload "personally sensitive or security-sensitive" images to a photo sharing service, you're stupid.

All your bits are belong to us

[quixote9]

which is why I pulled my blog off blogspot a couple of years ago when I first noticed that clause. (Via a Slashdot post, I think?) And it's also why I never started using picasaweb.

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:All your bits are belong to us

[pdboddy]

Yet you're still posting on Slashdot, which has the same clause.

Re:All your bits are belong to us

[quixote9]

Well, it might tell you how much I think my comments on Slashdot are worth. Glad to see you noticing, though, since it means you think ownership of my comments is worth worrying about. ;-)

Re:All your bits are belong to us

[pdboddy]

Hehe, but if you removed your blog from blogspot, it means you're worried about who own's your blog. :P Is not a blog and slashdot comments along the same lines, in being public and in the ease of people being able to comment on, copy and email and so forth?

This story is silly

[zucki]

Google is completely justified in having that in its TOS for those services.

The article nails it

[greenfield]

The license to distribute the content is not the issue: Google needs a license in order to be able to display content to the public. The only issues have to do with the terms of license regarding duration and purpose.

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 is almost a blank check to use content in any fashion. As the article points out, the TOS could allow Google to produce a book of Picasa images without compensating the photographers.

The article is spot on in this regard, and Google should modify their license terms.

Incidentally, this is not really new. This came up on earlier /. threads here and here. I compared various license terms for photo services on my blog one week before the release of Google Chrome and responded to the Google blog post a few days later.

Re:The article nails it

[pdboddy]

It remains to be seen whether or not the EULA would withstand scrutiny in a court of law.

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:The article nails it

[greenfield]

Actually, Yahoo could not easily put out a book of images from Flickr. Their TOS specify that the license is "solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted." Even if they wiggled around these terms, a photographer could terminate the license: "This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Service."

I fully agree that you should read the license agreement, but I'm not sure what you mean by "standard" language. Could you please cite a central authority or reference regarding "standard" terms with respect to content syndication? It would be nice if there were a standard set of license terms for syndication.

Re:The article nails it

[pdboddy]

Just start reading the terms of service for internet content companies. Facebook, Yahoo, MS, Photobucket, the list goes on... they have a similar clause in their terms of use. Not sure how many have "unlimited" though, but I'll bet it's more than just Google. I say standard because so many of them do have it.

Google responsible for content... ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that Google is responsible for content in a blog? They own it.

Back off when forced to

[Sockatume]

Google seems to be going in two different directions with these licensing terms, Abrams said. "One thing is to abide by their 'do no evil' creed, but also claim as many rights as possible," he said. "This is a typical corporate response: Try to get as much as you can and back off if forced to."

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 forced to.

You don't say..

[mweather]

So they use their Universal Terms of Service universally? And this is new why?

Overreaching agreements

[Animats]

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 information shall not be disclosed to anyone other than a direct APlus.net employee based within the United States. At no time shall said information be transferred outside the borders of the United States, by physical, electronic, or other means. The security measures used to protect such information shall be comparable to those used by the Legal Department of APlus.net to protect the company's own proprietary information.

Indemnification. APlus.net shall indemnify, defend by counsel reasonably accepted by ..., protect and hold ... harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, costs, damages, expenses, including consultants' and attorneys' fees and court costs, demands, causes of action, or judgments directly or indirectly arising out of or related to disclosure of the personal identity information disclosed under this agreement.

We'll have to see what happens. The "indemnification" clause, by the way, uses the same language they use in their terms of service.

Right now, they're not hosting the live site. So I can pull the plug on them at any time, and if they don't sign, I will.

These terms are neccessary!

[Peeteriz]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

TANSTAAFL

[soxos]

TANSTAAFL

You really think Gmail's free?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Warning! Warning!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you do, don't ask Google themselves. It'll ruin your whole conspiracy theory.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I'm surprised it only comes to people's...

[BarfooTheSecond]

... attention now, as there is some time these terms of services do exist...

That's why I don't use Picassa...

[Anonymous Coward]

...including its Picasa photo service...

My brother-in-law used it, my wife bugged me to get it for sharing pictures with family. I actually read the TOS, was astonished, and didn't install it. WABOS!

Doesn't make business sense

[Jim_Austin]

Many of the posters below are missing the point--which is that the greedy terms of service make a potentially useful service--like Google Docs--useless for any serious purpose. For example, I would like to use Google Docs in an international online publishing venture. But I can't, because of the TOS. Specifically, while for Google Docs section 11.1 is amended in a way that makes it (borerline) acceptable), section 11.2 remains: >>11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services. (and, yes, they actually misspelled "license" in their terms of service.) I'm sure they have their reasons, but these terms are unacceptable for my professional use. So, with regret, I don't use it. Assuming that Google has produced this service in the interest of making a profit, they've lost my business.