# Google Plus will own your photos



## GreatPhotoRace (Jul 9, 2011)

EDIT: Oops, need to change the title to "read Google Plus' Terms carefully when you post your photos"!

Watch out when you post your photos on Google Plus.  Their licensing terms pretty much give them free reign on distributing them!

Source: Google Plus claims the right to your photos


> "_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._"


----------



## patrick0294 (Jul 9, 2011)

Same with facebook from what I know


----------



## cdimitric (Jul 9, 2011)

Ya. That's why I like to read up on the services I post my pictures online with. I'm even wary of posting my good stuff on Flickr. But from what I read and see, it's a good place to start to open your work up to other people and possibly get put on other sites like Getty Images.


----------



## patrick0294 (Jul 9, 2011)

I think i'd be a good idea to buy a website and upload it to the web server via FTP if you want to feel safe.


----------



## KmH (Jul 9, 2011)

Post the entire section: (my bolding)



> *Content license from you*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.*​


​


----------



## table1349 (Jul 9, 2011)

KmH said:


> Post the entire section: (my bolding)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why must you always ruin a good "The Sky Is Falling" thread with the complete and whole truth?


----------



## Garbz (Jul 10, 2011)

Or in otherwords: "OMG Google uses the same terms of service for Google Plus as they do for Picasa web albums."


----------



## chrislovessushi (Jul 10, 2011)

Yeah this is pretty standard to find in a ToS these days. Facebook made this rights agreement popular and it has since been a pretty big topic in a lot of legal battles. Facebook always coming out on top of course.


----------



## Overread (Jul 10, 2011)

And yet flickr manages to do just the same but with a much better worded terms and conditions - also note that photobucket and many other image hosts retain the ability to sell to 3rd parties and the like without limitation (aside from a few of them saying - "oh but we'd never actually do that" ).

"The Services" is a bit ambiguous unless it is clearly defined in another part of the TC and could allow Google to abuse this clause - they wouldn't word it that way unless there was some direct advantage to them doing so.


----------



## Patrice (Jul 10, 2011)

I think putting images you don't want distributed anywhere on the net is foolhardy. Once an image is freely accessible on the web, you have lost all _realistic _ controls on it's use and distribution.


----------



## Overread (Jul 10, 2011)

Aye, but retaining and protection your legal rights is important - true anyone can take the image for any purpose, but by protecting your rights you stand to ensure that you can send a Take Down Order to prevent your works being used for purposes other than your desires - you can also ensure that you have protection against others profiting from your works (this part changes a lot depending on countries - eg in the US the amount you get depends a lot upon if the image is copyright registered or not).

 I think that it would be wrong to promote or encourage the idea that we should not protect our rights in this matter as it only leads down a slippery slope toward further devaluing the work of the photographer/musician/film maker etc..... and until we live in the utopia where we don't pay for food, fuel, lighting, services etc.. then its not always to our direct benefit to always give everything away for free/promote copyright theft.


----------



## Tomasko (Jul 10, 2011)

Overread, I see your point, but the problem is that Patrice is right. The moment you put ANYTHING on the internet, you can just hope that people will play according to license terms. Do you really think that you can do anything against companies like Google or Facebook? Do you really think that you could afford better lawyers, fund the whole process...? Oh come on! Thinking that would be utopia, and it is certainly not how it works in this world. If you really want to protect your rights, don't put your work on the internet. It's as simple as that.
You can put watermarks on your photos, you can write any license terms you want, but you will always end up just hoping, that nobody will abuse your rights.


----------



## Overread (Jul 10, 2011)

Granted one person cannot directly fight against Google or any other large company - however nothing stops a class action being brought against them and further the stain of "theft" on their reputation is not something they can lightly cast aside if it manages to gain enough momentum to hit the major press (though honestly they are not too hot on reporting on this since many themselves make use of the grey legalities of copyright to get what they want for free). 
Heck Facebook found this when they changed their usage terms on images hosted to retain all royalty free rights and 3rd party sales even after the images were removed from their servers (ie deleted by the owner) and the community backfired against them massively - to the point that they were forced to change their TC.

Of course I respect that the service is their to offer and the TC are not just written to be ignored (and that any commercial photographer should learn early on to read site limitations and conditions), so the fact remains that their TC is their rules of use if you want to use their services - - however that does not mean that we should simply roll over and give them what they want purely for their own financial gain and not leave ourselves a leg to stand upon.


----------



## patatedouce (Jul 13, 2011)

I don't know if they really 'own' our photos as KmH quoted. I read an article which helped me to understand better.
Source : Google Plus claims the right to your photos


----------



## KmH (Jul 13, 2011)

What Google plus has wriiten in their TOS is a *use license* *agreement* clause.

If you don't want Google plus to use your images, don't post them on Google Plus.


----------



## Aze (Jul 13, 2011)

One thing you have to note here is that this wording is required because Google is distributing your pictures every time a person views them online. They are acting as the distribution channel. So of course you have to assign them that right.

Thus way you can't come back and demand Google pay you for each page view of your picture page.


----------



## batman1988 (Jul 14, 2011)

Incorrect. No, it is not "required" and no you don't "of course" have to assign them that right. 

If that WAS the case, then how would a photouploader like mobypictures have Terms which say
"All rights of uploaded content by our users remain the property of our users and those rights can in no means be sold or used in a commercial way by Mobypicture or affiliated third party partners without consent from the user."

And intellectual property lawyer has said she understands why professional photographers would avoid using Google+ with the terms as they currently are, and that sites like moby and others do have much better terms for photographers.

I've seen the argument that they "have" to say this in terms and every other site also has these, and that is a hasty generalisation. People need to read terms, and perhaps get a little bit more reading comprehension about them, before just assuming things that are incorrect.


----------

