Google Plus – Read the Fine Print BEFORE You Sign Up. Google licenses (steals) your media.

[onehandle]

Google is the company that started out with a simple mission – don’t be evil. I think they meant it when they started. They have grown to be one of the biggest companies on the planet. I am not so sure they remember their original mission. Their image search feature allows them to profit from other people’s work without compensation. Their TOS (terms of service) allows them license to images — that I find concerning. Why am I bringing all this up now?

There’s lots of talk about Google+. It is Google’s answer to social networking. It will probably be successful because Google has their hooks into everything – and everybody.

snip...

As for me, there’s a reason I don’t have a Google Buzz account or a Google Picasa account. There’s a reason I won’t (at least while the TOS reads the way it does) be sharing any images on Google+. The reason is simple. If I do share images on Google services – under the current terms of service – I will risk genuine harm to my ability to earn income from those images. As a professional, I don’t see the reward of using the Google services as being worth more than the risk.

Oh and one more thing that is not photo related – the privacy issues services like these raise completely creep me out.

http://photofocus.com/2011/07/06/google-plus-read-the-fine-print-before-you-sign-up

[Brickbat]

1. Funny to think of something making Facebook look benevolent. I love my gmail, but this looks bizarre

and creepy.

[onehandle]

2. You get what you pay for.

And with both, you get ads, your private information sold to third parties, and your media scrutinized and 're-distributed.'

What a 'bargain.'

[negativenihil]

4. but

...facebook's policy is pretty much the same when it comes to your photos if you read the fine print. they reserve the right to use any image that passes through their content delivery system. the take awya form all of this is to not post photos you intend to use professionally on any social networking site. Doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

[Brickbat]

5. Yeah, I was talking about Google Plus' other features, such as not being able to block people.

[Shandris]

3. I remember noticing something to that effect in MSN years ago.

I used messaging for one day, but I couldn't go along with something like that. It's not what can be done NOW with what's available that should concern people...it's that no one cares what they will change to do in the future once it's all available.

[meegbear]

6. Just like Apple, go figure

[justiceischeap]

7. So does Yahoo! nt.

[NashVegas]

8. We Can Assume You Don't Have GoDaddy As Your Web Host

I started to buy a plan, to build a data-driven site and that came to a screeching halt when I read the fine print - they claim exploitation rights to everything. Photos, data, text.

How that differs from Google, Yahoo, etc, is your paid web host isn't offering you FREE storage and bandwidth.

[crikkett]

12. who'd you end up hosting with? n/t

[NashVegas]

13. None, Yet

Spending $30 a month on something I may never have the time to make profitable isn't on my priority list right now.

[KharmaTrain]

9. Think Before You Enter...

Bottom line is once your computer is connected to the innertoobs you and your machine has lost their privacy. No surprise here...been this way for a long time. Consider that any "work" that you put out become defacto "public domain"...so if you can't afford to "lose it" then don't send it.

Around my business and house I have a rule that only one machine is used for "playing" on the internet. The less you make accessible the better. Bottom line is there's really no "net privacy"...it's the new "public square".

[Princess Turandot]

10. Weird. For some reason, the photo blog author left out the first sentence of the clauses he quotes..

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

Consider a scenario:

-search Google Maps for Saks Fifth Avenue in NYC. There will be a sponsored ad for the store above the results if you aren't using an ad blocker.
-click on the store's name for result 'A'. That takes you to what Google calls a 'place' page, which is a Google website, not a Saks one. (However, it is owner verified.)
-on the place page for the store there is a photo, identified as being from Panoramio, which is a Google photo site used extensively in Google Maps and Google Earth.

The person who uploaded the photo to Panoramio sees that page and flips out, because as far as they are concerned, they only uploaded the photo to Panoramio. Now they want to be paid for its use on a places page for a business to which Google sells ad services: they believe that they are helping Google make money and they want a piece of it. In reality, while photos may enhance the users' experience, if they go to Sak's places page and don't see photos, I do not believe the user would care.

I'm not an attorney, so this is just my opinion. But I think that these quoted clauses are intended to allow Google to add photos from their related services to other services they themselves offer, without being sued, not an attempt by Google to sell the person's photo itself to Saks for display in their store window or on the Saks' website.

That being said, I can understand why a professional photographer wants economic control over every single photo they shoot. These photo sharing sites may just not be for them.

PT

[MilesColtrane]

11. I'm pretty sure that sort of thing has become the standard.

I think MySpace and Facebook have similar terms.

The only option seems to be to never put your creative content up on any web site other than your own. (And of course, make sure it has all been copyrighted before posting it.)

This won't keep people from stealing your work, but it will give you legal recourse if you catch them and can afford to do something about it.

If I were to join any social media site the only work related post I'd make would be a link back to my own site.

[madokie]

14. I've got NoScript installed and I don't let google run any scripts

unless I need a map then I let them temporally only. I don't trust them anymore. At one time I did until I started reading about the street view feature and what all they were collecting as they drove past. they built a data center down the road a couple miles from here and you'd think it was fort knox the way their security is. They have a problem with anyone knowing anything about them but they seem to take us for granted. fuck 'm is what I think.