4 ms·

Google then proceeds to say the exact opposite in the next paragraph: http://i.imgur.com/dqGgk.png http://i.imgur.com/dqGgk.png Quote: When you upload or other

by moe 15y ago

Google then proceeds to say the exact opposite in the next paragraph: http://i.imgur.com/dqGgk.png http://i.imgur.com/dqGgk.png Quote: When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works [...] Full text: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/ http://www.google.com/policies/terms/ Ignoring the fact that paragraph 1 and 2 directly contradict each other, I supposed what they want to say is: 1. By default all your data belongs to us. 2. We generously narrow the scope in the TOS for some of our services. Personally I find this inacceptable. The default should be keep their hands off my data. If individual services need more rights then that should be in the TOS of the respective services.

eli 15y ago
There is no contradiction; you are confusing ownership and licensing. You are still the owner of your content, but of course you have to grant Google permission to use it! How else would it be legal to operate Google Drive and store things on your behalf? I think we can agree that it would be unfair for someone to place content in Google Drive and then turn around and sue Google for copyright infringement when it is uploaded to their servers, no?
- hackinthebochs 15y ago
  The problem is that it's not clear the license to "use, create derivatives, etc" is solely for the purpose of providing you access to your data worldwide. Using, say, your vacation photos in an advertisement seems within the scope of the TOS. Google could be clearer if they chose to be. I believe it is intentionally vague.
  - eli 15y ago
    The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. That doesn't seem intentionally vague to me. I suppose a restriction on using vacation photos in their ads would be nice... But is that really what people are concerned about? That doesn't seem very likely or threatening.
    - hackinthebochs 15y ago
      Promoting seems problematic to me. What does promoting mean and in what manner will they be promoting their service using data that I upload? A reasonable laymen read of this basically means advertising.
    - jeffool 15y ago
      The concern is that, say, a musician is in the process of making a new song. Google sees this, and releases the song shortly before the artist releases it themselves, and for free! Now what is the artist to do? The likelihood? Small. But if it happens, you'll have Google befitting from that artist's work, and the artist less able to do so. The artist would have given away his right to sue, possibly unknowingly (because who reads TOS'?!) And of course Google won't pay him. Not because they don't want to, but because they know it'll open the floodgates of similar claims!
      - eli 15y ago
        Seems like something that almost never happens, actually. In the list of ways that copyright can screw musicians, this seems very very far down the list. (and as an aside, you can most definitely sue for copyright infringement no matter what a click-through license says)
  - jonknee 15y ago
    How would you word it differently? They need to be able to use and create derivatives (thumbnails or cropping images is a "derivative", ditto for encoding a YouTube video). This is the terms for every Google product. If it was changed for line by line detail for every product, it would change so frequently that users could never know what was in it or agree to it. Drive hooks in with a ton of Google services, its policy would likely be hundreds of pages long if it was not "intentionally vague". Dropbox's terms are similar, except to sound like they were not written by a lawyer. > "We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example, hosting your files, or sharing them at your direction" Sounds like a license to use and create derivatives to me...
    - hackinthebochs 15y ago
      What does promoting mean in this context? A reasonable read of this would basically mean "advertising". I think the dropbox terms are clearer, and not because they weren't written by a lawyer. They were specifically meant to be as clear as possible. Because Google has a global TOS now, they have to be vague enough to encompass all services. But this introduced ambiguity. I never understood their motivation for this. Clarity is preferable to a single TOS that we all know a minuscule amount of people read.
raldi 15y ago
You cropped your screenshot a little unfairly -- the very next line is clearly relevant to the discussion: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."
- ahi 15y ago
  "new ones" could include pretty much anything. "raidi's [source|scripts|recordings|photography] by Google!" The "limited" purpose is so broad Google could resell your video archives to Netflix or your photos to Getty.
singlow 15y ago
I don't think those are contradictory. In order for Google to synchronize your data to various devices and provide it to its API's for you to access it in its applications, it needs permission (a license) from you. Asking for that license every time you try to access each photo in an image manipulation program would be excessively cumbersome. In addition, this policy is directly related to "submitting content". I do not interpret that to include storing files on a storage service or sending email through a hosted email source. Submitting content needs to be defined, but it is not the same as copying a file into a storage bin. After putting an image into your Google drive, you might then submit it to Picasa, or you may even have an automated process of submitting all files in your Google drive to Picasa, but the submission of that content has to be considered a different act than just storing data on a hosted storage drive.
rryan 15y ago
Coming from an open-source developer perspective, it's frustrating that people who don't have a working knowledge of copyright still feel free to speak as if they are knowledgeable about copyright on sites like HN. Copyright is second-nature to anyone who has to deal with open-source licenses, CLAs, and so on on a day to day basis -- so let me try to explain: Everything you do is by default copyright by you in the US. When you make a copy of your own work and give it to somebody the recipient of that copy needs a license from you to describe how they are allowed to use it. If the person you give it to does not receive a license from you, then they are violating your copyright and you can sue them. This means that the second you upload a work of your own to Google, if they do not have a license to that data then they are violating your copyright -- even though you chose to upload it to them. When you conclude that Google intended to say "By default all your data belongs to us" you are showing that you really don't understand the difference between owning a copyright and having a license. Please, stop speaking with authority about copyright issues if you do not understand them because it does not do the HN community a service. You still own the copyright on your work and you have given Google a license to use it. That license is broad because Google (and in this case Google Docs/Drive) has a broad set of features that allow you to do lots of things with your data. When you use a feature like sharing a Google Doc with somebody, you are not doing those things -- you are asking Google to do those things with your data via HTTP requests. Google has to be a allowed to do those things legally and the license implements that. For example, Google Docs/Drive has that 'Anyone with the Link' ACL that allows anyone on the Internet to view or edit your document so of course Google needs a "worldwide license to host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works...". You or anyone else editing a document in Google Docs is creating derivative works of that original document you uploaded. Please, understand that "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content" means just what it says. And "you give Google [...] a worldwide license [...]" is not at all contradictory with that. I've only talked about US law at this point but remember that Google has to deal with copyright in every country. A broad license like this is just a fact of offering the features Google does worldwide.
jonknee 15y ago
> The default should be keep their hands off my data Then they couldn't receive your uploaded data. Or your email. Or your videos. This is the overal terms for all Google products, it was exactly the same as before Drive (since their privacy policies got merged recently). Read the second to last sentence of paragraph 2: > Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. The global policy is the most broad, pretty common sense. Google will read your files so you can search them, but they aren't going to start selling your content.

by moe 15y ago

eli 15y ago

There is no contradiction; you are confusing ownership and licensing. You are still the owner of your content, but of course you have to grant Google permission to use it! How else would it be legal to operate Google Drive and store things on your behalf? I think we can agree that it would be unfair for someone to place content in Google Drive and then turn around and sue Google for copyright infringement when it is uploaded to their servers, no?

hackinthebochs 15y ago
The problem is that it's not clear the license to "use, create derivatives, etc" is solely for the purpose of providing you access to your data worldwide. Using, say, your vacation photos in an advertisement seems within the scope of the TOS. Google could be clearer if they chose to be. I believe it is intentionally vague.
- eli 15y ago
  The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. That doesn't seem intentionally vague to me. I suppose a restriction on using vacation photos in their ads would be nice... But is that really what people are concerned about? That doesn't seem very likely or threatening.
  - hackinthebochs 15y ago
    Promoting seems problematic to me. What does promoting mean and in what manner will they be promoting their service using data that I upload? A reasonable laymen read of this basically means advertising.
  - jeffool 15y ago
    The concern is that, say, a musician is in the process of making a new song. Google sees this, and releases the song shortly before the artist releases it themselves, and for free! Now what is the artist to do? The likelihood? Small. But if it happens, you'll have Google befitting from that artist's work, and the artist less able to do so. The artist would have given away his right to sue, possibly unknowingly (because who reads TOS'?!) And of course Google won't pay him. Not because they don't want to, but because they know it'll open the floodgates of similar claims!
    - eli 15y ago
      Seems like something that almost never happens, actually. In the list of ways that copyright can screw musicians, this seems very very far down the list. (and as an aside, you can most definitely sue for copyright infringement no matter what a click-through license says)
- jonknee 15y ago
  How would you word it differently? They need to be able to use and create derivatives (thumbnails or cropping images is a "derivative", ditto for encoding a YouTube video). This is the terms for every Google product. If it was changed for line by line detail for every product, it would change so frequently that users could never know what was in it or agree to it. Drive hooks in with a ton of Google services, its policy would likely be hundreds of pages long if it was not "intentionally vague". Dropbox's terms are similar, except to sound like they were not written by a lawyer. > "We may need your permission to do things you ask us to do with your stuff, for example, hosting your files, or sharing them at your direction" Sounds like a license to use and create derivatives to me...
  - hackinthebochs 15y ago
    What does promoting mean in this context? A reasonable read of this would basically mean "advertising". I think the dropbox terms are clearer, and not because they weren't written by a lawyer. They were specifically meant to be as clear as possible. Because Google has a global TOS now, they have to be vague enough to encompass all services. But this introduced ambiguity. I never understood their motivation for this. Clarity is preferable to a single TOS that we all know a minuscule amount of people read.

raldi 15y ago

You cropped your screenshot a little unfairly -- the very next line is clearly relevant to the discussion: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."

ahi 15y ago
"new ones" could include pretty much anything. "raidi's [source|scripts|recordings|photography] by Google!" The "limited" purpose is so broad Google could resell your video archives to Netflix or your photos to Getty.

singlow 15y ago

I don't think those are contradictory. In order for Google to synchronize your data to various devices and provide it to its API's for you to access it in its applications, it needs permission (a license) from you. Asking for that license every time you try to access each photo in an image manipulation program would be excessively cumbersome. In addition, this policy is directly related to "submitting content". I do not interpret that to include storing files on a storage service or sending email through a hosted email source. Submitting content needs to be defined, but it is not the same as copying a file into a storage bin. After putting an image into your Google drive, you might then submit it to Picasa, or you may even have an automated process of submitting all files in your Google drive to Picasa, but the submission of that content has to be considered a different act than just storing data on a hosted storage drive.

rryan 15y ago

Coming from an open-source developer perspective, it's frustrating that people who don't have a working knowledge of copyright still feel free to speak as if they are knowledgeable about copyright on sites like HN. Copyright is second-nature to anyone who has to deal with open-source licenses, CLAs, and so on on a day to day basis -- so let me try to explain: Everything you do is by default copyright by you in the US. When you make a copy of your own work and give it to somebody the recipient of that copy needs a license from you to describe how they are allowed to use it. If the person you give it to does not receive a license from you, then they are violating your copyright and you can sue them. This means that the second you upload a work of your own to Google, if they do not have a license to that data then they are violating your copyright -- even though you chose to upload it to them. When you conclude that Google intended to say "By default all your data belongs to us" you are showing that you really don't understand the difference between owning a copyright and having a license. Please, stop speaking with authority about copyright issues if you do not understand them because it does not do the HN community a service. You still own the copyright on your work and you have given Google a license to use it. That license is broad because Google (and in this case Google Docs/Drive) has a broad set of features that allow you to do lots of things with your data. When you use a feature like sharing a Google Doc with somebody, you are not doing those things -- you are asking Google to do those things with your data via HTTP requests. Google has to be a allowed to do those things legally and the license implements that. For example, Google Docs/Drive has that 'Anyone with the Link' ACL that allows anyone on the Internet to view or edit your document so of course Google needs a "worldwide license to host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works...". You or anyone else editing a document in Google Docs is creating derivative works of that original document you uploaded. Please, understand that "You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content" means just what it says. And "you give Google [...] a worldwide license [...]" is not at all contradictory with that. I've only talked about US law at this point but remember that Google has to deal with copyright in every country. A broad license like this is just a fact of offering the features Google does worldwide.

jonknee 15y ago

> The default should be keep their hands off my data Then they couldn't receive your uploaded data. Or your email. Or your videos. This is the overal terms for all Google products, it was exactly the same as before Drive (since their privacy policies got merged recently). Read the second to last sentence of paragraph 2: > Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. The global policy is the most broad, pretty common sense. Google will read your files so you can search them, but they aren't going to start selling your content.