Google+ and photographers

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by compuwar, Jul 13, 2011.

  1. rusty2192, Jul 13, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2011

    rusty2192 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #2
    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.
     
  2. funkahdafi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2009
    Location:
    Planet Earth, Old World
    #3
    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.
     
  3. fitshaced macrumors 68000

    fitshaced

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
  4. emorydunn macrumors 6502

    emorydunn

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Location:
    Austin Texas
    #5
    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.
     
  5. tinman0 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    #6
    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?
     
  6. mtbdudex macrumors 68000

    mtbdudex

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    #7
    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.

     
  7. compuwar thread starter macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #8
    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
     
  8. alleycat macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    #9
    Post them as links from your domain or website, and you're in the clear. Don't ever upload anything to them though.
     
  9. c1phr macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    #10
    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.
     
  10. mackmgg macrumors 65816

    mackmgg

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    #11
    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).
    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+
     
  11. SkippyScud macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #12
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #13
    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.
     
  13. compuwar thread starter macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #14
    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
     

Share This Page