Google+ owns your pictures

Google+ is Google's answer to social media, designed to compete directly with Facebook. It's not open to the general public yet, but it will be soon. It's pretty cool, but it's going to be a tough job uprooting 500 million Facebook users. Anyway, here's a little snippet from the Google+ terms of service:

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.

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.

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.

We've touched on some of this verbiage in the Rights Grab thread. I'm not a lawyer, but what Google+ is trying to do here is pretty obvious. Combined with the already powerful Google image search, they are trying to own the rights to every image on the planet. The wording of this terms of service is dangerous.

Basically, if you wanted to license photos, the above agreement makes any image you post to Google+ the property of Google. Watermark, copyright, or not...it doesn't matter. You won't be able to offer any kind of license on those photos anymore. Ever.

You've been warned.

---

› See More: Google+ owns your pictures

Hrm, I'm wondering if Google is just covering their butt for purposes of indexing and displaying images in search results? I don't think Google is trying to capitalize on other people's images, although they do indirectly generate ad revenue through search results.

Sure they are covering their butts in the process, but for Google this is all about distribution. Google owns the internet...I'm actually kind of surprised that it hasn't been renamed the Googlenet. They want to be the unifying source for everything: type in aardvark and a user has access to:

• search listings
• social media hits (aardvark lover clubs, etc.)
• photos/video

It's all cross-referenced across multiple platforms. But as smart as Google is, they've been doing it all the hard way by coding, buying up companies (like YouTube) and rolling out new products. With Google+, it's all crowdsourced and the masses will do it for them.

And will all that coverage, there's just about no way that the average net user can escape coming across Google in one form or another at some point. That exposure commands high revenue dollars in the form of ads. Yes, it's all about the money. I don't know of any company who goes into business under any other premise.

Sure they are covering their butts in the process, but for Google this is all about distribution. Google owns the internet...I'm actually kind of surprised that it hasn't been renamed the Googlenet.

Weren't they under investigation for this --anti-trust law violation? And wasn't this the reason that "ma Bell" was broken up into smaller companies?

I wonder what Facebook has in their terms of service. If I ever get a few minutes someday, I will check it out!

Originally Posted by ohkphoto

Weren't they under investigation for this --anti-trust law violation?

Yup. Google has been under investigation many times in the past. The most recent investigation just started either last week or a couple weeks ago. This time it's on a much bigger scale, the entire Google search operation is under investigation. Most notably, how Google Places listings are bumped to the top during searches. Duh...it's their own product, why wouldn't they?

Like Anthony says, it's all about making a buck...........that simple. The American Dream, right?

it's all about making a buck...........that simple. The American Dream, right?

Is there any place on this planet that does not revolve around money?

Originally Posted by Vermontster

I wonder what Facebook has in their terms of service.

You can read them here.

Facebook has tried to pull a fast one a few different times in regards to their terms of service. Unanimously, users have stood up in opposition and Facebook has made changes. Here is the part of Facebook's TOS that affects content:

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).

Translation: Facebook doesn't own your stuff, you do.

Facebook has to protect itself in distributing your content to others, and it does here. But this TOS does not give Facebook ownership rights to your stuff, only to distribute it. And those rights end when you remove your content. Facebook doesn't hold onto those rights forever like Google's TOS does. That is a HUGE difference.

Does Google+ have a picture system separate from Picasa (soon to be Google Photos) ?