Google+ and photographers

rusty2192

macrumors 6502a
Oct 15, 2008
997
81
Kentucky
Just another reason why Google is turning into the evil Empire. Where are the Jedi when you need them?

I went ahead and signed up for Google+ last night just for the heck of it since my friend sent me an invite. However, I will NOT be putting any of my photos on there. I don't even usually put them on facebook. That's why I have my own website now to host them. (Not that I'm a professional, or even semi-pro by any means) I just don't trust Google.
 
Last edited:
Comment

funkahdafi

macrumors 6502
Mar 16, 2009
265
1
Planet Earth, Old World
don't panic. every cloud service uses terms like this. see the recent discussion about dropbox. those terms are legally needed by the provider so he can perform service on them. example: you upload a photo to flickr and then use the flickr photo editing feature. the photo editing feature is provided by another provider, not flickr. it's integrated into flickr but it's owned and operated by someone else. flickr needs to gransfer your pnoto to the editing service and thus they need you to license them to do so.

google or any other provider is ot interested in your photo. they make money on advertising, not on stealing intelectual property from their users.

you find the same terms in apple's aperture so they can transfer your photos to a photo printing service.

so... relax.
 
Comment

emorydunn

macrumors 6502
Jun 5, 2006
457
0
Austin Texas
I find all of the "we're taking your rights" posts to be a bit old. The way I see it there are a few options. You can just not use the service and not have to worry about it. Or you can not post anything that you feel will be a big deal if an "evil corporation" decides they want to use it for "evil things".

I just think that the ten people who actually read the TOS before using a service and then blog about it are doing a bit of a disservice. While we should read the TOS and know what we're agreeing to; finding the bits about ownership and posting them without context and then headlining it in a way that makes it sound scary is more evil than the service.

And besides, most social networks (Facebook, Google+, etc.) are more for posting those questionable party pics than your whole fine art portfolio.
 
Comment

tinman0

macrumors regular
Jun 5, 2008
181
3
I just wish these companies would add the words "For the purpose of...."

I totally understand why they need to have access of this sort to the data, but they could clarify better in my opinion.

Anyway, whats to worry about with Facebook considering they destroy the quality of any photograph during upload?
 
Comment

mtbdudex

macrumors 68000
Aug 28, 2007
1,792
161
SE Michigan
looks familiar....while not eactly same I posted this here early this year, Feb-1-2011:
Online web-magazine freelancing....

I ended up NOT doing this freelance work....felt I gave up my IP ownership too much.

CONFIDENTIAL
AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(For Freelance Photography/Videography)
[Note: This Amendment requires the prior approval of the applicable Regional Editor]
PLEASE READ THIS AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (THE “AMENDMENT”) CAREFULLY. BY PROVIDING YOUR ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE YOU ARE FORMING A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT WITH COMPANYA AND AMENDING YOUR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH COMPANYA (THE “AGREEMENT”). YOUR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE AGREEMENT, AS AMENDED.

Parties: The individual providing Services pursuant to the Agreement (“You” or “Service Provider”) and CompanyA Media Corporation, a Delaware corporation, with its principal offices at 123 street, Suite 001, New York, NY 00001 (“CompanyA”) (each a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”).

Effective Date: This Amendment is effective as of the date it is signed electronically by Service Provider (the “Effective Date”).

Background: This Amendment is intended to grant Service Provider additional rights in Images taken by Service Provider, as described further below. It is not intended to alter the ownership rights in any content produced by Service Provider other than Images. Notwithstanding Section 4 of Exhibit B of the Agreement, the terms in this Amendment shall apply to ownership and licensing of Images taken by Service Provider. As used in this Amendment, “Images” means photographs, graphic, static, or video images, and other illustrations that Service Provider provides to CompanyA or takes pursuant to any assignment from CompanyA.

Ownership: Service Provider shall own all right, title and interest in and to the Images, including the right to copyright the Images (or any portion thereof).

License Grant: Service Provider hereby grants to CompanyA and its corporate affiliates including without limitation (and in all cases, reference herein to one includes reference to both) an exclusive (during the Exclusivity Period and non-exclusive thereafter), perpetual, worldwide, sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, store, distribute, have distributed, broadcast, have broadcasted, publicly and privately display, communicate, publicly and privately perform, transmit, have transmitted, create derivative works based upon, sell and promote the Images in any medium now known or hereafter devised. Without limitation of any of the foregoing or the generality thereof, and for the purpose of illustration only, the Images may be used (i) as a background or superimposed image, (ii) as icons, banners or buttons, (iii) in broadcast and theatrical exhibitions, (iv) in online and offline screenshots, (v) as altered, cropped, manipulated, modified and/or used in combination with other images, text, audio or video, including overlaying text on the image, or (vi) in any other manner as CompanyA sees fit, including creating searchable databases in which the Images will be available, and CompanyA may make the Images or portions thereof available through RSS feeds promoted on, through or in connection with any CompanyA property and/or third-party websites or other types of syndication initiatives, and CompanyA may offer its end users the ability to snag such Images by allowing users to make such material viewable, playable or displayable on or through CompanyA products or services (e.g., CompanyA video or audio players, CompanyA widgets, CompanyA photo galleries) on third-party websites or web pages.

Exclusivity Period: The Exclusivity Period with respect to any Image and any other Images taken on the same date shall begin on the date the Image is provided to CompanyA and shall continue for a period of ninety (90) days (the “Exclusivity Period”). During the Exclusivity Period, Service Provider shall not have the right to display or use the Images in any way (with the sole exception of Service Provider’s use of CompanyA-approved Images for limited, self-promotion, i.e., non-commercial, non-publication, purposes to promote Service Provider’s own work to persons other than the general public, including promotional cards and online or other portfolios as may be approved in advance in writing by CompanyA). Without limiting the foregoing or the generality thereof, Service Provider shall not have the right to use the Images for merchandising purposes (i.e., on or in connection with the offer or sale of merchandise that references or bears the Images).

Effect of Amendment: All other terms and conditions of the Agreement not specifically amended, changed or modified by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect. Any capitalized term that is not defined in this Amendment shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Agreement.
 
Comment

compuwar

macrumors 601
Original poster
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
don't panic. every cloud service uses terms like this. see the recent discussion about dropbox. those terms are legally needed by the provider so he can perform service on them.
They're overly broad for the purpose of simply hosting the images- they could easily couch the usage for the purposes of the service, but they don't. If I can write a license that restricts usage fairly, I'm sure the lawyers at Google are also capable of it.

Paul
 
Comment

alleycat

macrumors regular
Mar 23, 2008
121
0
Post them as links from your domain or website, and you're in the clear. Don't ever upload anything to them though.
 
Comment

c1phr

macrumors 6502
Jan 8, 2011
352
4
Mind you, Chrome had (not sure if it still does) a clause in its TOS that made anything you used the browser for recordable and giving Google ownership of anything you posted or uploaded. Not to say anything is wrong with Google, just saying that they're there for every service.

All sorts of TOS's have these kinds of things (FB does too for your photos) and they could be debated in court easily if there was ever an issues, though I doubt there ever would be.
 
Comment

mackmgg

macrumors 65816
Nov 2, 2007
1,405
22
Mind you, Chrome had (not sure if it still does) a clause in its TOS that made anything you used the browser for recordable and giving Google ownership of anything you posted or uploaded. Not to say anything is wrong with Google, just saying that they're there for every service.
That is pretty bad. Google doesn't need ownership of photos I upload to my own site using Chrome (not that I would generally use a web browser for that, the principle still stands).
All sorts of TOS's have these kinds of things (FB does too for your photos) and they could be debated in court easily if there was ever an issues, though I doubt there ever would be.
With one major difference though. Most (Facebook, Dropbox, etc) are temporary, and end as soon as you delete the photo. Google's is permanent, and there's no way to un-license them once you upload a photo to Google+
 
Comment

SkippyScud

macrumors member
May 10, 2011
70
0
USA
Gary Whitta found this and posted it to my G+ feed. Translates the legalese. But in the end, don't post it to the public if you don't want it public.

 
Comment

MattSepeta

macrumors 65816
Jul 9, 2009
1,255
0
375th St. Y
Gary Whitta found this and posted it to my G+ feed. Translates the legalese. But in the end, don't post it to the public if you don't want it public.

Image
Fantastic.

Google is just trying to cover all their bases, as we all know there are far too many people willing (looking) to sue a big player for a quick buck.
 
Comment

compuwar

macrumors 601
Original poster
Oct 5, 2006
4,717
2
Northern/Central VA
Fantastic.

Google is just trying to cover all their bases, as we all know there are far too many people willing (looking) to sue a big player for a quick buck.
The irrevocable part though allows them carte blanch. Worse, it's not necessarily Google-- what if they decide to spin off or sell off Google+? The company acquiring the entity would acquire the rights.

Forever is a very long time.

Paul
 
Comment

Similar threads

Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.