Google Chrome Browser Terms Of Use & Photography

[Photo-John]

An interesting blog post about Google's new Chrome Web browser and the terms of use agreement. Looks like using Google's Chrome browser gives Google the right to use any content you share or display on that browser.

http://tapthehive.s483.sureserver.com/chrome.html

Let's hope they update their terms of use document so that it doesn't rip off photographers and other content creators. I'm not sure I trust Google in this area since they've been hot to avoid copyright for books so they can digitize and put them online without paying royalties. I'm sure not gonna use the new browser until I know for sure I'm not giving away my photos by using it.

[mtbbrian]

An interesting blog post about Google's new Chrome Web browser and the terms of use agreement. Looks like using Google's Chrome browser gives Google the right to use any content you share or display on that browser. .

WHOA!
How can they do that?
Sorry google, I am not going to try Chrome now...
Thanks John!
Brian

[Photo-John]

"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. This license 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."

They may have the best of intentions and it does say "non-exclusive." However, it also says they have a "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."

Hell no.

[Canuck935]

Ack!!!

Run!!! Run Away!!!

[megan]

HELLS no. WTF????? No way.

[another view]

"By submitting, posting or displaying the content

How does this work? Let's say I download their stupid browser, oblivious to the terms and conditions (like 99% of users), and look up Brian's website with it. Does that mean that they now have rights to any of his images I see? He is obviously choosing to not use it because of the terms but the way I read it, it might not matter.

Yikes!

[mjs1973]

How does this work? Let's say I download their stupid browser, oblivious to the terms and conditions (like 99% of users), and look up Brian's website with it. Does that mean that they now have rights to any of his images I see? He is obviously choosing to not use it because of the terms but the way I read it, it might not matter.

Yikes!

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[Skyman]

looks like google have changed their Terms already.

[freygr]

I would not use it, as Znet is already reporting a security problem. I would what a few weeks or months before trying it any way.

[Asylum Steve]

They may have the best of intentions and it does say "non-exclusive." However, it also says they have a "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."

Hell no.

I dunno, sounds to me like almost the exact same wording that Yahoo used years ago that had everybody in an uproar. Then they did a major damage control spin that assured everyone that it was just for self-promotion (ie banner ads), and was in no way intended to infringe on anyone's copyrights, especially creative types.

In time everyone sort of forgot about it...

My guess is Google had their lawyers make the TOS frighteningly vague to begin with, so it gives them some wiggle room to make adjustments depending on the backlash...

But think about it. They simply cannot do what your worst fears seem to be. There is protection. That'd be like a tv cable or satellite company claiming they have rights to the programming material.

IMO, It's the same thing. Cable tv companies run promos using actual broadcast material to advertise their services...

[Asylum Steve]

Let's hope they update their terms of use document so that it doesn't rip off photographers and other content creators.

You know, now that I reread the TOS, it sounds to me like they're simply trying to protect their rights to display web material, which is the primary function of a browser.

IOW, they want to make sure that I can't sue them if someone views my web site using their browser.

I really don't think it's anywhere near as bad as everyone's making it out to be. Sounds more like legalese to insure they can have their product on the market without any hassles...

[mtbbrian]

How does this work? Let's say I download their stupid browser, oblivious to the terms and conditions (like 99% of users), and look up Brian's website with it. Does that mean that they now have rights to any of his images I see? He is obviously choosing to not use it because of the terms but the way I read it, it might not matter.

Yikes!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !:incazzato: :mad5: :yikes:
If this is the case, I feel like I should have to put a statement of some kind asking people not to go beyond the the first page if they are using Google's Chrome..

You know, now that I reread the TOS, it sounds to me like they're simply trying to protect their rights to display web material, which is the primary function of a browser.

IOW, they want to make sure that I can't sue them if someone views my web site using their browser.

Is that your take on it Steve? Google trying to protect themselves in some vauge way?
Brian

[xystren]

"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. This license 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."

They may have the best of intentions and it does say "non-exclusive." However, it also says they have a "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."

Hell no.

This has gotten out of hand in my opinion. I always like how they state that they have the right to change the terms of service/use at their whim and we are bound to those new terms. Some don't even provide notification of changes.

It was interesting there was a posting on Slashdot.org about "The Five Most Laughable Terms of Service on the Net" (ok I admit, it, I'm a nerd) and ToS like this are not that uncommon.

There are a only a handful of people that actually read those ToS (I also tend to be one of them.) Generally, it seems to really favor the "corporate entity" rather than the rights of the photographer/user. Talk about a nice easy way to increase a stock photo portfolio without any compensation for the photographer.

While one could have "faith" that Google will stick to their motto "Don't Be Evil" but the way those terms are worded as such that by clicking that "I Agree" button, it's let's them open Pandora's Box real easily.

Interestingly, looking at ConsumerReview.com TOS, there is some very similar verbiage which I've italicized.

License Grant
By contributing or submitting product reviews, message board postings, product photographs, or any other Content, you automatically grant (or warrant that the owner of such rights has expressly granted) us an irrevocable, royalty-free, transferable and worldwide right and license to use, copy, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from and sell and distribute such materials or incorporate such materials into any form, medium or technology without compensation to you. In addition, you warrant that all so-called moral rights in those materials have been waived. None of the materials shall be subject to any obligation of confidence on the part of Consumer Review.com.

This has become *FAR* too common and too much the status quo. Granted it is a non-exclusive, but the "sell and distribute... ...without compensation to you." isn't much different at all. As much as I dislike to even suggest it, our own backyard's ToS could be considered very similar to what we are saying "HELL NO" to.

[Asylum Steve]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO !:incazzato: :mad5: :yikes:
If this is the case, I feel like I should have to put a statement of some kind asking people not to go beyond the the first page if they are using Google's Chrome..


Is that your take on it Steve? Google trying to protect themselves in some vauge way?
Brian

Well. I don't know. Considering their history of trying to skirt publishing royalties to archive books online, this may be a way of doing something similar with images.

So, it's probably not a flat out attempt to profit directly from our content, but rather a sneaky way of getting out of paying licencing fees.

I'm sure this will be the topic of many dicussions in coming weeks and months, so it'll be interesting to see what develops...

[Asylum Steve]

While one could have "faith" that Google will stick to their motto "Don't Be Evil" but the way those terms are worded as such that by clicking that "I Agree" button, it's let's them open Pandora's Box real easily...

Agree with you completely. Yahoo's final word on their (at the time) controvesial TOS was "guys, you'll just have to trust us...", implying that while they could, they would never misuse any member's creative property.

[xystren]

Agree with you completely. Yahoo's final word on their (at the time) controvesial TOS was "guys, you'll just have to trust us...", implying that while they could, they would never misuse any member's creative property.

Until the company is then bought out by another entity that has different opinions (didn't Microsoft put a bit in for Yahoo a ways back?), or the management happens to change with different views, or they just simply decide to change their mind. In this day and age, things change so fast, and what was said seems to disappear into the shadows.

[Photo-John]

Interestingly, looking at ConsumerReview.com TOS, there is some very similar verbiage which I've italicized.

Heh heh. You got me there. I've written multiple versions that say that there is an exception for photos posted on this site. But they always disappear. I'll see what I can do about getting that fixed - again. I'm a photographer, too. And I don't want Consumer Review taking the rights to my photos any more than anyone else here.

[another view]

Agree with you completely. Yahoo's final word on their (at the time) controvesial TOS was "guys, you'll just have to trust us...", implying that while they could, they would never misuse any member's creative property.

Exactly. Agreed on the idea that they probably won't but "probably" doesn't go too far with paying the bills, so to speak. And if Microsoft re-enters the picture with Yahoo, interpretation of that same TOS could be different.

I seem to remember a discussion about the TOS on this site too, but I thought that was fixed. Apparently it's not something I lose sleep over...

Are there any cases of a company with a similar TOS actually using someone's image? Doesn't mean it can't happen, just that it maybe hasn't.

[SmartWombat]

Is Chrome just a browser?
Or does it "phone home" to Google and copy what it sees to Google's servers?
I was wondering if that was a way to supplement their crawling robots.

In which case, if I'm viewing company proprietary information on our intranet, does Chrome send a copy of that information to Google to be indexed and cached ?
That raises interesting IP issues.

[f5fstop]

From the company that agreed to censor its results in China to gain access to the Chinese market, now gives you some deep security concerns:

"The history search feature means you can find all your financial, medical and other secrets from the browser without going anywhere near the secure site. Or someone else can. If you have a PC where someone else can access it -- for example, in almost any office -- then it's a recipe for disaster. Since you'll never remember to always use the "porn mode" (InCognito), then the best answer may be to stay well away from anything password protected and personal.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has a different concern. It says, according to CNet's headline, We're concerned about Google's Omnibox. There's a privacy issue because anything you type in gets sent back to the Google mothership, and it's storing some of it. The ways to avoid that include (1) turn off auto-suggest; or (2) use a default search engine that isn't Google; or (3) use porn mode. Any one will do."

I do not use Google for anything....and never will....

[Axle]

In addition to there are other concerns with Chrome...

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...gle_chrome.php

[brmill26]

Most of what I've read about Chrome is that Google's overriding purpose is to drive advertising. To that end, they track most of what you do online - where you go, how much time you spend there, what you do there, etc. If you believe/trust Google, they'll only use this in the aggregate to determine profiles for better-directed advertising. However, the reality is that it's simply a private version of Big Brother watching your every move. I will not be using it; I'm quite happy with Mozilla anyway.

On ToS terms, if you'd like a lawyer's view of it, here it is. In-house corporate lawyers are paid big money to figure out ways to keep the company from being sued. What's the best way to do that? Reserve as many rights as possible to the company. From the company's point of view, they need to be able to operate with the lowest cost/encumbrances as possible. That means reserving rights to modify, redistribute, assign, etc. And they exempt themselves from notice so that if/when they do have to make changes, they don't have someone say "Hey, I didn't know, and you were supposed to tell me, so I'm suing." That's what they want to avoid; when you have millions of customers, one minor problem could cost you billions to defend - even if you're right.

But from a personal rights point of view, yes, absolutely, you're "signing" away everything. And I must say, I'm glad everyone on this board (and many photographers in general) are so well aware of their rights.

What I would say is this: ALWAYS read the ToS. But, realize why they're written like they are. Is Google's browser out to collect every image on the internet so they can resell it? Certainly not. But is Flickr? You'd have to dig deeper if that were the case, b/c their site is based entirely around images. So question it, but realize who it is and what they might be trying to do. Google in particular would have much more to lose from (legally) "stealing" your images and reusing them. The ToS is simply designed to limit their liability as much as possible and to give them as much ability to move, develop, and change their services and as a company as possible.

I'm not saying it's right; just saying that's why and that the reality of the internet.