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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 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

[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: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: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:All your bits are belong to us

[pdboddy]

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

TANSTAAFL

[soxos]

TANSTAAFL

You really think Gmail's free?