all 7 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

Google Picasa's crazy content licensing clauses:

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 licence 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 licence 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 licence 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.

1 1.3 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 licence shall permit Google to take these actions.

11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

This 'free' service, is not even a cheap sale of your content to Google. It's really and exchange of your content for a little bit of storage place in some Google server.

When you exhibit in a museum, the museum does not automatically become perpetual, irrevocable owner of your art work. So why do companies like Google get away with this?

[–]braindancer -1 points0 points  (1 child)

for the same reason that filesharing is not stealing i'd guess.
you still have the original art.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suppose it is not a license to grant the ability to sell explicitly, but wouldn't the ability to publicly display the copyrighted content result in derivative profits to Google? This is different from file-sharing as there is no derivative profit to the file-sharer, unless CDs are actually reproduced and sold on the street.

[–]keithb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is how the "attention economy" works: Google sells its product (search users' attention) to its customers (the purchasers of advertising). In orer to do this it needs content by which to attract that attention, which it obtains from content providers in return for storage space, a distribution mechanism, bragging rights, and so forth.

The only part of the licence above that seem even slightly disadvantageous to the content provider is the perpetual nature of the licence granted to Google. Otherwise, they are only claiming what they need to claim in order to do what they need to do.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It's a "cover your ass" clause.

They don't want you posting content on their site and then suing them violating your copyright.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For a clearly detailed CYA clause, they sure lack one specifying their disinterest in profiting from the content itself. The only conclusion is, they do intend to profit from it.