[jstevewhite]

No disagreement there. US Constitution (Art.1 Sec.8) lays out copyright and patent protection:

"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

And that is a good model: FOR LIMITED TIMES. Patents are good for, what, 7 years I think. But wholly-owned pols will eventually set the 'limit' of copyright as being 10 nanoseconds before the heat death of the universe.

I've mentioned a study showing that from 1800-1900, Germany went from a rural political jumble to surpassing Britain as an industrial power -- in large part because British copyright laws were strong, limiting the spread of information, while Germany's lack of IP laws lead to plagiarism and rapid dissemination of useful knowledge. China has followed a similar path in recent decades. Strong IP strangles development. Those who ignore your IP will eat your shorts.

LOL! Excellent! I see you and I have little to argue about with regard to IP except the likelihood of Google becoming a stock agency

[Michaelina2]

I ran across this and found it interesting, since Google+ is just getting started and supports imagery...

• Google Plus – Read the Fine Print BEFORE You Sign Up Photofocus

“...you give Google a ... non-exclusive license ..

If the word was "exclusive" instead of "non-exclusive", I might give it a second thought. As it sits, now, I have trouble seeing this as a big deal.

...my 2 cents...

[pricyber]

How does one get an invite to Google +

PM me with your email. I will give you one.

[FullertonImages]

Bit of a thread resurrection here but... It's true. There's is little to nothing to fear about the G+ TOS. And it's much, much better than FaceBook's. This TOS is about as harmless as it gets, and there is nothing in there that gives them the legal right to sell or license any of our images. The word to look out for is "transferrable", which I haven't seen. Without that word, no matter how many rights they have, they could never extend those rights to a third party, i.e., sell them. And also, everything that the OP posted is qualified by the last two words, "the Services", i.e. Google+. Ever single right they just obtained is null and void outside the world of G+. Google only has the rights in question to your images within the services you are signing up for, which is Google+.

[RioRico]

Yes, the TOS ain't too bad. But the NO ANONYMITY policy sucks. Here are some pieces on that:

“On Pseudonymity, Privacy and Responsibility on Google+” (excellent Nym Wars rant)

Dispatch from the Nymwars: Pseudonyms and science

And although I'm holding an invite, I won't exercise it till I can be RioRico there.

[Ivor K Ecks]

I'm with interested_observer on this one.
You are not only granting Google+ a legal right to use your photos, but the whole Google empire and associated companies.

I am not alleging that Google have or will do it, but you have, by agreeing to this TOS ,given Google the legal right to. Now and forever. Note the words perpetual and irrevocable. If in the future Google acquired a company associated with photography in any way they are free to use any of your photos published on Google+.
To give someone the legal right to use your photos for free is just stupid.

[alohadave]

Well first of all, I am an engineer, and not an attorney. However, I deal with requirements, government contracts and vendor licenses, day in and day out. The point that I was attempting to make, is to read and understand the fine print, as it may very well matter a lot to some folks somewhere out in the future...



Actually, its a bit more than just covering their butts since it does come out and say "the pictures are ours now, we'll do what we want". If you go to the article, they say a bit more in terms of...

“You agree that this license 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.”

Essentially, if they want to sell it in any way, shape or form, they will, with the check going to Google. If Google's attorneys did not intend this, then it would not be there. Everything there is there for a purpose....



As I pointed out above, the license gives them a bit more ability than just for resizing and simple distribution from one computer to another. You are giving them non-exclusive ownership - essentially co-owning the copyright with them. If it were just for resizing and benign distribution, it would have been written differently.

If you walk into a store and see one of your images on a package sitting on the shelf from MegaCorporation, it just might be legal, and profitable for Google. They do not even need to give you notice or attribution.....

Now I do have to agree that the last paragraph quoted in the article, tend to tone down the - "its ours now", however it does not say that they will not sell it, it just appears to make everything sound a bit more friendly - and it certainly does not limit any of their actions, that they gave themselves in the previous paragraphs.

“You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.”

All in all, its nice to share our images. However, once its out in the wild its out there and there is no putting the cat back into the house.

In the past Google was building a soft library (books, magazines, journals, etc.) with published works. The copyright holders objected. To some extent its there - within limits. Its a good resource and useful.

With Google+ you have the opportunity to use the service - and license your works to Google, or not. Its your choice - however, things may turn out a bit different that what your interpretation and understanding may be.

just my opinion...

You really should understand what you are talking about before you try to tell other people what the terms mean.

A usage license is not ownership. And Google is not going to sell your pictures, that is pure paranoia.

[alohadave]

I'm with interested_observer on this one.
You are not only granting Google+ a legal right to use your photos, but the whole Google empire and associated companies.

I am not alleging that Google have or will do it, but you have, by agreeing to this TOS ,given Google the legal right to. Now and forever. Note the words perpetual and irrevocable. If in the future Google acquired a company associated with photography in any way they are free to use any of your photos published on Google+.
To give someone the legal right to use your photos for free is just stupid.

This may help ease your fears: Reality vs. Copyright Paranoia | Errata

[FullertonImages]

Well first of all, I am an engineer, and not an attorney. However, I deal with requirements, government contracts and vendor licenses, day in and day out. The point that I was attempting to make, is to read and understand the fine print, as it may very well matter a lot to some folks somewhere out in the future...



Actually, its a bit more than just covering their butts since it does come out and say "the pictures are ours now, we'll do what we want". If you go to the article, they say a bit more in terms of...

“You agree that this license 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.”

Essentially, if they want to sell it in any way, shape or form, they will, with the check going to Google. If Google's attorneys did not intend this, then it would not be there. Everything there is there for a purpose....



As I pointed out above, the license gives them a bit more ability than just for resizing and simple distribution from one computer to another. You are giving them non-exclusive ownership - essentially co-owning the copyright with them. If it were just for resizing and benign distribution, it would have been written differently.

If you walk into a store and see one of your images on a package sitting on the shelf from MegaCorporation, it just might be legal, and profitable for Google. They do not even need to give you notice or attribution.....

Now I do have to agree that the last paragraph quoted in the article, tend to tone down the - "its ours now", however it does not say that they will not sell it, it just appears to make everything sound a bit more friendly - and it certainly does not limit any of their actions, that they gave themselves in the previous paragraphs.

“You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.”

All in all, its nice to share our images. However, once its out in the wild its out there and there is no putting the cat back into the house.

In the past Google was building a soft library (books, magazines, journals, etc.) with published works. The copyright holders objected. To some extent its there - within limits. Its a good resource and useful.

With Google+ you have the opportunity to use the service - and license your works to Google, or not. Its your choice - however, things may turn out a bit different that what your interpretation and understanding may be.

just my opinion...

"for the provision of syndicated services"

That is the huge qualifying statement that everyone is ignoring. And every single ominous sound clause in the TOS, as far as I can tell, is always qualified by some like "for the provision of the Service". Every single right they are getting in necessary for them to provide the service that you are refusing to sign up for because they think you are trying to steal your images.

For example, the clause you mentioned:

“You agree that this license 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.”

Right now on LinkedIn, it pipes in my Twitter feed to my homepage. Everything I post on Twitter goes straight ot my LinkedIn homepage. I'm sure it won't be long before the same thing is available for Google+. So G+ is giving LinkedIn the permission to republish anything I post on G+, which would include pictures. That iss the syndication of services. Syndication of services does not include taking images you upload, and the transferring the license to other people people, or selling the images to other parties. Every single right in the TOS is contained within the provision of the service, and necessary to do so.

[Ivor K Ecks]

Nothing to worry about.........Really.

I suggest that you read this Your photos? Not so according to many popular photo-sharing apps - TNW

Although it does not mention Google in this article the Situation regarding website TOS is very much the same.