Came across this link by a photographer called Colby Brown. He believes the service to be the best thing since sliced bread while quoting such Google rules such as, “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 on or through, the Services.”
He mitigates it by quoting “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. (for remainder see #3 below)”
I for one am uncomfortable with Google's wants and am curious to see if others are using this service or how members may feel about it.
What is Google going to do with a 600 pixel watermarked image?
Google already essentially has "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" Internet. It's called the Google search engine (for images). It's what allows people to find you, and Google to make money.
I don't think it's a big deal.
Posted by David Taylor on July 19, 2011 at 2:27 AM
I've been using Google+ for several days now, at Colby's recommendation (my original invite came from him). He quotes Google's TOS (Terms of Service). These are, in fact, standard TOS that are used by nearly every social networking site out there. A big 'to do' was made of Google's evilness by Scott Bourne right after Google+ was released a few weeks ago. Scott was using this very scary sensationalist story to only draw traffic to his website - which he accomplished I might add.
I agree with Colby, Google+ is a game changer. Hopefully, Google builds on what they have started, rather than hampering it and making it annoying to use (like Facebook... can you say "Farmville"?). It has a lot going for it, and there are already a ton of creatives on board with it. There is a whole new level of interactivity, sharing, and networking that was rarely experienced on Facebook. It just seems a bit more 'adult'... so far. One never knows what will happen. But so far, there are no adds, no farmville requests, no "So and so just became friends with so and so and 16,000 other people). There is some crap to sort through, to be fair - but I'm liking it a lot more than I ever liked networking and sharing on Facebook.
It's also a 'cut & paste' from the rules of virtually all the photo contests out there. Writing rules broad allows them cover against being sued over something they forgot to cover if they end up using the photo in a way they didn't initially think of.
I agree with those who are not worried about google+ or any other social media sites using our images. As a pro photographer using their service for free, and making lots of money off these services, I don't have a problem if they did use any of my images. We have these powerful tools such as facebook, twitter, wordpress, linkedin, and now google+ that are all FREE to promote our photography, and people are worried that on some very rare chance they would choose one of your image for some promotion. If we had to pay for the exposure we get from these services, we couldn't afford it as a small businesses. Last time I checked one of the major photo magazines wanted $17,000 for a full page ad, and that's a one shot deal, and that only reaches a very small amount compared to the reach of the internet. So I have no problem if they want to use any of my images, as long as they keep giving me a free way of promoting my business. Now if you are not there promoting your photography as to make money, you have that option of not posting any of your images if their policies bother you.
Posted by Varina Patel on July 19, 2011 at 9:22 AM
Mike - I couldn't agree with you more. I pay nothing at all to use Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Flickr, and all these other social networking sites. In turn, I get the word out about my photography to millions of potential customers. That translates to very real returns. My photography business thrives because of sites like these... and so do many others. I have no concerns that Google will get any use out of my 720px, 72dpi images.
For me, the benefits far outweigh the risks. And Google+ offers a wide variety of options for expanding my online presence. I'm loving it!
Jim's comments are revealing, "It's also a 'cut & paste' from the rules of virtually all the photo contests out there." We have seen postings here where people are against such requirements in contests.
While appreciating others thoughts, I'm still uncomfortable with it. Not simply Google+ but social networks as a whole. Perhaps it is because of the images I have had misappropriated over the years, but I suspect it may be due to the lack of protection those in both technology and legislation seem to wish to offer photographers. The music and movie industries with the blessing of legislators and DRM, are going full guns on it.
My concern is that a great many people, even in the industry, are not fully aware of how copyright works or even the extent of it. In a conversation I recently had with a senior archivist in Britain she pointed out the difficulties of her work in archiving digital media in that simply copying an item of work from one disk to another during the course of her work was, technically, a violation of copyright. She also told of an international ad company that kept getting nailed. It wasn't that the company was malicious, rather the younger members of staff believed everything on the internet was free.
While appreciating the opinion that the benefits may greatly outweigh the downside, what I find troubling is the acceptance of image theft in principal. Unfortunately photographers have no major organizations, like music or film, battling for them. It doesn't trouble me that some youngster may use an image of mine for a screensaver, that a publishing company may use a low res image as part of a montaged book cover does.
In recent years proposals such as orphan works legislation appear to diminish rather than strengthen copyright. While not singling out Google, I have fears that the acceptance of such terms, while affording no protections, may only serve to continue to diminish rights.
Discussion
6 repliesCame across this link by a photographer called Colby Brown. He believes the service to be the best thing since sliced bread while quoting such Google rules such as, “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 on or through, the Services.”
He mitigates it by quoting “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. (for remainder see #3 below)”
I for one am uncomfortable with Google's wants and am curious to see if others are using this service or how members may feel about it.
Google already essentially has "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" Internet. It's called the Google search engine (for images). It's what allows people to find you, and Google to make money.
I don't think it's a big deal.
I agree with Colby, Google+ is a game changer. Hopefully, Google builds on what they have started, rather than hampering it and making it annoying to use (like Facebook... can you say "Farmville"?). It has a lot going for it, and there are already a ton of creatives on board with it. There is a whole new level of interactivity, sharing, and networking that was rarely experienced on Facebook. It just seems a bit more 'adult'... so far. One never knows what will happen. But so far, there are no adds, no farmville requests, no "So and so just became friends with so and so and 16,000 other people). There is some crap to sort through, to be fair - but I'm liking it a lot more than I ever liked networking and sharing on Facebook.
For me, the benefits far outweigh the risks. And Google+ offers a wide variety of options for expanding my online presence. I'm loving it!
While appreciating others thoughts, I'm still uncomfortable with it. Not simply Google+ but social networks as a whole. Perhaps it is because of the images I have had misappropriated over the years, but I suspect it may be due to the lack of protection those in both technology and legislation seem to wish to offer photographers. The music and movie industries with the blessing of legislators and DRM, are going full guns on it.
My concern is that a great many people, even in the industry, are not fully aware of how copyright works or even the extent of it. In a conversation I recently had with a senior archivist in Britain she pointed out the difficulties of her work in archiving digital media in that simply copying an item of work from one disk to another during the course of her work was, technically, a violation of copyright. She also told of an international ad company that kept getting nailed. It wasn't that the company was malicious, rather the younger members of staff believed everything on the internet was free.
While appreciating the opinion that the benefits may greatly outweigh the downside, what I find troubling is the acceptance of image theft in principal. Unfortunately photographers have no major organizations, like music or film, battling for them. It doesn't trouble me that some youngster may use an image of mine for a screensaver, that a publishing company may use a low res image as part of a montaged book cover does.
In recent years proposals such as orphan works legislation appear to diminish rather than strengthen copyright. While not singling out Google, I have fears that the acceptance of such terms, while affording no protections, may only serve to continue to diminish rights.