4 ms·

Go read the terms for Grammerly. They own the rights to everything you type into a browser that has their plug-in installed. If you types a novel in google

Go read the terms for Grammerly. They own the rights to everything you type into a browser that has their plug-in installed. If you types a novel in google docs using a bowser they actually own the rights to that novel. They capture everything that comes into the browser, everything. After having a 2 hour call with Grammerly and their lawyers, it was pretty clear that they believe they own in perpetuity everything you type, bu they look at everything that is sent to the browser. If you work for a healthcare company Or a financial services company Grammerly is seeing all of your data, they think they own it, and can sell it.

MobileVet 7y ago
This needs more attention... thanks for bringing it up.
- MobileVet 7y ago
  So... why did I get downvoted for thanking someone for their post??
ossworkerrights 7y ago
This should be a post on its own!
asxd 7y ago
I’d be interested to hear more about why this 2 hour call happened, if you’re willing to share.
- brobdingnagians 7y ago
  Not the OP, but I'm assuming it was due diligence for a company interested in using the product and that read the ToS, then called to clarify. With my current job, I've come to appreciate that there are quite a few large companies that thoroughly read the ToS and take issue with them.
sinstein 7y ago
Is this true? I opened up Grammarly TOS and found this: Ownership All intellectual property rights in and to the User Content are and shall remain your property, and Grammarly shall acquire no right of ownership with respect to your User Content. Link - https://www.grammarly.com/terms#ownership https://www.grammarly.com/terms#ownership
- jacobush 7y ago
  Not saying this is what they mean, but isn't there a difference between ownership and license to use something?
brobdingnagians 7y ago
For those interested, appears to be the last paragraph under "User Content" [1] The "royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content" part is pretty broad. It has the caveat "in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services", but that is also pretty broad, and I wouldn't be surprised if they interpreted it generously. If you were building a competing service and typed code into the browser somewhere, apparently they would have a license to use that to improve their own service. [1] https://www.grammarly.com/terms#user-content https://www.grammarly.com/terms#user-content
- grabeh 7y ago
  I think there's a few points: a) at what point is content uploaded to Grammarly. Is it uploaded automatically as you input (if you have the Chrome extension), or is it uploaded only where a user activates the extension. Clearly if the latter, then no one is going to be using Grammarly to check their code so no issue. Even if the former, it's still debatable whether or not the terms of use would even grant rights. It's still limited to content 'in connection with the use of the services or software' - content uploaded passively without any user action (aside from the initial act of installing the extension) doesn't fall neatly into that bracket. b) The likelihood of Grammarly taking a decision to incorporate third party code into their service or to improve their service on the basis of the license granted in the terms of use is extremely slim. The reputational hit if it were to come out, and the lack of legal certainty over the status of the third party code would both act as a strong disincentive to do this.
  - godelski 7y ago
    > or is it uploaded only where a user activates the extension. What if the extension is always running? Looking in every text field it finds? Because that would be convenient, but clearly we aren't "using the service" in all instances (as in ignoring what it suggests because it is easier than turning it off).
    - 7y ago
lozenge 7y ago
Which section of the TOS is that in? I don't see anything about that, but it's a very long TOS so I just searched some keywords. You are also contradicting their own FAQ. The closest thing I can see is the indemnity section which limits damages. If you're an editor and paste an author's work in, they can't get any damages from Grammarly, if you paste your own work in, your damages are limited to 12 months subscription - even if they bound your input into a novel and published it, or were hacked and somebody else published it. However, it would still be a criminal act of copyright infringement.
- DanBC 7y ago
  Parent poster seems to be talking about this, which is a standard feature of any ToS that allows services to operate at all. I think this para clearly tells the user that he or she retains the rights to content, and it goes on to say that Grammarly only needs these rights to provide the service and improve the algorithms. I don't think it says that Grammarly get to keep the content and do what they like with it. > You retain all right, title, and interest in and to your User Content. By uploading or entering any User Content, you give Grammarly (and those it works with) a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content (and, if you are an Authorized User, your Enterprise Subscriber’s User Content) in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services. See eg HN's tos: > By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed.
grabeh 7y ago
The rights Grammarly (https://www.grammarly.com/terms https://www.grammarly.com/terms) take to use your data is limited as follows: "in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services." This on the face of it wouldn't extend to selling your content. Obviously terms of use can change, but a material change like granting Grammarly the right to sell content would usually oblige Grammarly to notify users and at that point users could take a decision to stop using the service. Also, realistically any proposal to sell data would make use of the service for great swathes of enterprise users a complete non-starter.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
kd5bjo 7y ago
There’s also the issue of multi-user systems. The person who installs the extension is only competent to bind themselves to terms, and Grammerly doesn’t have any explicit relationship with other people that may use the same browser, especially if they never activate any of the extension’s features.
godelski 7y ago
This is really interesting, because that specific example seems to violate HIPAA laws. Definitely GDPR. But there's another scenario that I think is interesting. Let's just assume that Google makes a similar claim about things in google docs (because I'm pretty sure they do). So if you write a novel in Google docs and use Grammerly, who owns the novel? You? Google? Grammerly? What happens if all three of you try to publish said book? I feel like the public stance would be "the writer owns the book", but I think they'd also give concessions for Google and Grammerly who did some work (provided software and error checking). It'll be interesting to see how we work these things out.

MobileVet 7y ago

This needs more attention... thanks for bringing it up.

MobileVet 7y ago
So... why did I get downvoted for thanking someone for their post??

ossworkerrights 7y ago

This should be a post on its own!

asxd 7y ago

I’d be interested to hear more about why this 2 hour call happened, if you’re willing to share.

brobdingnagians 7y ago
Not the OP, but I'm assuming it was due diligence for a company interested in using the product and that read the ToS, then called to clarify. With my current job, I've come to appreciate that there are quite a few large companies that thoroughly read the ToS and take issue with them.

sinstein 7y ago

Is this true? I opened up Grammarly TOS and found this: Ownership All intellectual property rights in and to the User Content are and shall remain your property, and Grammarly shall acquire no right of ownership with respect to your User Content. Link - https://www.grammarly.com/terms#ownership https://www.grammarly.com/terms#ownership

jacobush 7y ago
Not saying this is what they mean, but isn't there a difference between ownership and license to use something?

brobdingnagians 7y ago

For those interested, appears to be the last paragraph under "User Content" [1] The "royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content" part is pretty broad. It has the caveat "in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services", but that is also pretty broad, and I wouldn't be surprised if they interpreted it generously. If you were building a competing service and typed code into the browser somewhere, apparently they would have a license to use that to improve their own service. [1] https://www.grammarly.com/terms#user-content https://www.grammarly.com/terms#user-content

grabeh 7y ago
I think there's a few points: a) at what point is content uploaded to Grammarly. Is it uploaded automatically as you input (if you have the Chrome extension), or is it uploaded only where a user activates the extension. Clearly if the latter, then no one is going to be using Grammarly to check their code so no issue. Even if the former, it's still debatable whether or not the terms of use would even grant rights. It's still limited to content 'in connection with the use of the services or software' - content uploaded passively without any user action (aside from the initial act of installing the extension) doesn't fall neatly into that bracket. b) The likelihood of Grammarly taking a decision to incorporate third party code into their service or to improve their service on the basis of the license granted in the terms of use is extremely slim. The reputational hit if it were to come out, and the lack of legal certainty over the status of the third party code would both act as a strong disincentive to do this.
- godelski 7y ago
  > or is it uploaded only where a user activates the extension. What if the extension is always running? Looking in every text field it finds? Because that would be convenient, but clearly we aren't "using the service" in all instances (as in ignoring what it suggests because it is easier than turning it off).
  - 7y ago

lozenge 7y ago

Which section of the TOS is that in? I don't see anything about that, but it's a very long TOS so I just searched some keywords. You are also contradicting their own FAQ. The closest thing I can see is the indemnity section which limits damages. If you're an editor and paste an author's work in, they can't get any damages from Grammarly, if you paste your own work in, your damages are limited to 12 months subscription - even if they bound your input into a novel and published it, or were hacked and somebody else published it. However, it would still be a criminal act of copyright infringement.

DanBC 7y ago
Parent poster seems to be talking about this, which is a standard feature of any ToS that allows services to operate at all. I think this para clearly tells the user that he or she retains the rights to content, and it goes on to say that Grammarly only needs these rights to provide the service and improve the algorithms. I don't think it says that Grammarly get to keep the content and do what they like with it. > You retain all right, title, and interest in and to your User Content. By uploading or entering any User Content, you give Grammarly (and those it works with) a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty-free and fully-paid, transferable and sublicensable, perpetual, and irrevocable license to copy, store and use your User Content (and, if you are an Authorized User, your Enterprise Subscriber’s User Content) in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services. See eg HN's tos: > By uploading any User Content you hereby grant and will grant Y Combinator and its affiliated companies a nonexclusive, worldwide, royalty free, fully paid up, transferable, sublicensable, perpetual, irrevocable license to copy, display, upload, perform, distribute, store, modify and otherwise use your User Content for any Y Combinator-related purpose in any form, medium or technology now known or later developed.

grabeh 7y ago

The rights Grammarly (https://www.grammarly.com/terms https://www.grammarly.com/terms) take to use your data is limited as follows: "in connection with the provision of the Software and the Services and to improve the algorithms underlying the Software and the Services." This on the face of it wouldn't extend to selling your content. Obviously terms of use can change, but a material change like granting Grammarly the right to sell content would usually oblige Grammarly to notify users and at that point users could take a decision to stop using the service. Also, realistically any proposal to sell data would make use of the service for great swathes of enterprise users a complete non-starter.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

kd5bjo 7y ago

There’s also the issue of multi-user systems. The person who installs the extension is only competent to bind themselves to terms, and Grammerly doesn’t have any explicit relationship with other people that may use the same browser, especially if they never activate any of the extension’s features.

godelski 7y ago

This is really interesting, because that specific example seems to violate HIPAA laws. Definitely GDPR. But there's another scenario that I think is interesting. Let's just assume that Google makes a similar claim about things in google docs (because I'm pretty sure they do). So if you write a novel in Google docs and use Grammerly, who owns the novel? You? Google? Grammerly? What happens if all three of you try to publish said book? I feel like the public stance would be "the writer owns the book", but I think they'd also give concessions for Google and Grammerly who did some work (provided software and error checking). It'll be interesting to see how we work these things out.