Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Google+  (Read 1486 times)
wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5734



WWW
« on: September 27, 2011, 12:04:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Don't think anyone's mentioned it here, but Google+ no longer requires an invitation to create an account - anyone with a gmail address can create a Google+ account.  Calling it Google's version of Facebook is a disservice to both of them, but a LOT of photographers are migrating there.  You can read more about it here:

https://plus.google.com/112915508949553064969/posts/Vtq5GB59wi1
http://www.colbybrownphotography.com/blog/google-the-survival-guide-for-a-photographers-paradise/

Mike.

(P.S. You can find me here: https://plus.google.com/114491140236947895493/posts)
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2011, 01:08:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's something to ponder from their TOS:

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

11.2 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.

emphasis mine

It's the above types of catch-all far-reaching and non-negotiable terms that keep me away from services such as Google+ and Facebook. In case of dispute you are left to Google's mercy, or take them to court against their stable of trained attack lawyers.
Logged

PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2011, 03:30:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, the purpose of social media is to share and display. In that context, the Google+ license is actually quite acceptable. If you invert your highlighting, you have one of the most benevolent license available right now in the framework of social media. For photographers, sharing low res versions of files is essentially risk free. It should also be noted that this license applies to Gmail as well: if you fear Google will steal your picture, you must also fear they could possibly read your mails and share them with the world, or steal your next novel if you happen to be writing in in Google Docs. Given Google's business model, petty theft is unlikely to happen as the consequences for their bottom line would be too significant.

If you don't want that risk, run your own boxes, servers, their security, etc... etc...

Of course, a picture gets stolen from time to time, usually not by public entities that have a lot to lose in terms of reputation or eventually assets. But that's what happens with cell phones, cars, jewels, ideas, articles, root certificates, etc...

Do we know of a large scale systematic covert photographic asset grab and use by some similar social/hosting service? (genuine question, I haven't looked into this...) I was under the impression that large agencies whose open purpose is to showcase and sell the photographer's work did a lot more damage when they unilaterally changed terms and users were trapped, not necessarily by legale, but by practical issues.

Anyway, I don't share a lot either and run a lot of what I need in-house. But being on social networks is a bit like driving - they are risks, drunk people, thieves, etc... but you can statistically survive through all that by driving carefully and using common sense.

Logged
Monito
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 28, 2011, 07:17:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Here's something to ponder from their TOS:

It's the above types of catch-all far-reaching and non-negotiable terms that keep me away from services such as Google+ and Facebook. In case of dispute you are left to Google's mercy, or take them to court against their stable of trained attack lawyers.

Concerns about such terms are overblown.  Google's is quite reasonable, for two reasons.  First, the terms clearly limit Google to using it to promote the Google+ service ("the sole purpose").

Second, practically and legally, by the language of the ToS and the practicalities of digital images, the images are limited to only the content you upload.  That's what it clearly says.  If you upload a 960 x 640 image with a discreet but clearly visible watermark in the corner plus a very faint overall watermark hidden in the image, that is the only version of that image that they can use.

They do not have a legal right or a practical way to invade your house and snatch a 4500 x 3000 image off your hard drive.  They do not have the right to photograph a version of your 960x640 image that you just happen to have on display in an illuminated bus shelter poster, no right to very carefully photograph it with a digital medium format back and sell fine art prints of it or licence it to Arizona Highways.

What part of "you retain copyright" do you not understand?  Is tin foil involved?
Logged

MonitoPhoto (Landscape, Architecture, Portraits: Halifax, Nova Scotia)
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2909

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: September 28, 2011, 07:54:57 PM »
ReplyReply

They do not have a legal right or a practical way to invade your house and snatch a 4500 x 3000 image off your hard drive.  They do not have the right to photograph a version of your 960x640 image that you just happen to have on display in an illuminated bus shelter poster, no right to very carefully photograph it with a digital medium format back and sell fine art prints of it or licence it to Arizona Highways.

You do realize that more and more advertising is online, where 150x600 pixel banner is plenty of resolution? There have been several cases on this very forum and elsewhere where a Fortune 50 company has appropriated copyrighted or limited rights photos for advertising purposes. And that's just the beginning of potential issues.

Many people are happy with the TOS, I'm not. YMMV.

Not responding to ad hominems.
Logged

Monito
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 96



WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 28, 2011, 08:23:09 PM »
ReplyReply

You do realize that more and more advertising is online, where 150x600 pixel banner is plenty of resolution? There have been several cases on this very forum and elsewhere where a Fortune 50 company has appropriated copyrighted or limited rights photos for advertising purposes. And that's just the beginning of potential issues.

One or even a few copyright thefts of 150x600 pixel banners is unlikely to make much of a dent in a photographer's earnings, even though it is egregious.  Such appropriation by third party companies has nothing to do with the ToS in question.  Putting anything online anywhere creates the potential.  Watermark everything you can or at least discreetly put your URL on it, making it a felony if the electronic ID is removed.  Do you have references to some of those cases?  Perhaps links to forum articles here?  I have nothing specific to search on.

The ToS terms are not "catch-all" or "far-reaching", as you put it.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2011, 08:26:42 PM by Monito » Logged

MonitoPhoto (Landscape, Architecture, Portraits: Halifax, Nova Scotia)
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3982



« Reply #6 on: September 29, 2011, 02:39:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Second, practically and legally, by the language of the ToS and the practicalities of digital images, the images are limited to only the content you upload.  That's what it clearly says.  If you upload a 960 x 640 image with a discreet but clearly visible watermark in the corner plus a very faint overall watermark hidden in the image, that is the only version of that image that they can use.
Hmm. Perhaps not. They are able, within the terms of the agreement, to adapt and/or modify it.

Not that any of my snapshots would be worth the effort, of course.

Jeremy
Logged
Bryan Conner
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 519


WWW
« Reply #7 on: September 29, 2011, 04:17:12 AM »
ReplyReply

If Google used, or sold an image taken from a person's uploaded content, and profited from it, and the photographer decided to challenge Google, the media would be all over it like flies on feces.  The negative publicity for Google would be more costly than attorney's fees.  Of course, Google could easily absorb attorney fees, but negative publicity would be a much bigger issue in today's environment of the web user being more and more alert to privacy issues on the part of the social networks.  I don't think Google is stupid enough to "steal" someones image.

Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad