Google+ Outs the Fox in Henhouse - Steve Rosenbaum - Steve Rosenbaum - Steve Rosenbaum's The Media Memo

Published: July 14, 2011 at 02:59 AM GMT
Last Updated: July 12, 2011 at 02:59 AM GMT

The social network wars are heating up - as Google+ roars on the scene after giving Facebook a five year head start.

But things aren't as they appear - and in fact while both Facebook and Google+ are social networks, the two companies have very different agendas as to why they want you to connect and share with them, and what the long term implications of choosing a social network could be.

But now that users are starting to explore Google+, it's clear that Google sees the social network environment as critical to gathering both data and content.

Yes, you heard me right - Google's terms and conditions, buried in tiny print that most users will miss, gives them the right to take control of your content.

"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."

The key terms here are Perpetual, Royalty-Free - and most disturbingly - Adapt and Modify.

So, this means that if you've taken pictures of a sunset, or fireworks, or your children playing with a toy - or anything - Google has the right to grab those images, edit them, publishing them, and re-sell them.

Oh, and one more thing. If you think the answer is simply that you won't put any pictures on your G+ page, think again. Google REQUIRES you to link your Picasa account to your G+ account, and therefore requires you to license your Picasa to them under their Royalty-Free contract.

Don't like it? Don't use Google+. Oh, but keep in mind that if you do use Google+ or an Android Phone, or any other Google products that need photos, you're going to be pushed hard to use Picasa. iPhoto users? You're out of luck.

Now, to be fair - Google's gaining traction on Google+ because it responded to a need that Facebook has ignored, the need to expand the concept of 'friends' from a single idea to a series of concentric circles that allow you to create a more nuanced network of friends, family, associates, and groups. The volume of noise on the web is growing fast, and Facebook users will explore Google+ to see if there's a more orderly way to manage social interaction.

But how does Facebook feel about the rights to your content? Their Terms of Service clearly state: "You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook" and goes on to say that while you grant them the right to use your IP while its posted, "This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account.

But Google's decision to trade me a 'free' service to the perpetual rights to my stories, images, video, and content isn't fair, and will make it impossible for anyone who makes a living in the content space to embrace Google+. Maybe that's the idea? If Google can aggregate enough consumer content and UGC, then maybe they don't need to pay creators for their work. That's a scary thought.

Steve Rosenbaum is founder and CEO of Magnify.net, and the Author of the recently released McGrawHill Business book "Curation Nation" (March / 2011). Steve can be contacted at steve@magnify.net Follow Steve Rosenbaum on Twitter: www.twitter.com/magnify

Check us out on Facebook at MediaBizBloggers.com
Follow our Twitter updates @MediaBizBlogger

MediaBizBloggers is an open-thought leadership blog platform for media, marketing and advertising professionals, companies and organizations. To contribute, contact Jack@mediadvisorygroup.com. The opinions expressed in MediaBizBloggers.com are not those of Media Advisory Group, its employees or other MediaBizBloggers.com contributors. Media Advisory Group accepts no responsibility for the views of MediaBizBloggers authors.

To communicate with or to be contacted by the executives and/or companies mentioned in this column, link to JackMyers Connection Hotline.

Whoa, hang on, what Facebook Ts and Cs are you reading? I see: "You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof."

Posted at 06:04 AM on Jul 14, 2011 by dd

Sorry, but this needs a "-1" button. Read the whole term, 11.1:

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.

Key bits being "you retain copyright and any other rights" and "this license is for the sole purpose...".

Don't panic!

Posted at 07:08 AM on Jul 14, 2011 by Rob

No web service is free. Sometimes you pay money, other times you pay in other ways, like data and privacy. I also don't see any reason why the author should brush off privacy concerns presented by using facebook, what about automatic facial recognition tagging? That was scary, and it was opt-out, not opt-in.

Still, the modern world requires that consumers understand what they are giving up. I like my Google services just fine, and they can have my photos.

Be careful what services you consume.

Posted at 07:27 AM on Jul 14, 2011 by Josh

Facebook updated its TOS in February 2009 to read exactly as Google's do. Only after a backlash did it revert. I expect Google will follow suit. http://consumerist.com/2009/02/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever.html

Posted at 09:56 AM on Jul 14, 2011 by Mark Moran

The TOS actually says:
"*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.*"

Posted at 12:25 PM on Jul 14, 2011 by Ed Chi

in fact:

By posting or submitting content to this site, you: grant MediaBizBloggers and its affiliates and licensees the right to use, reproduce, display, perform, adapt, modify, distribute, have distributed, and promote the content in any form, anywhere and for any purpose; and warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content and that public posting and use of your content by MediaBizBloggers will not infringe or violate the rights of any third party.

---

Or did you not see the ToS for the site you're currently writing on about google saying the same thing? ;)

Posted at 01:03 PM on Jul 14, 2011 by laura

RE: Backlash forcing anyone to "follow suit" and change ToS... Not very likely. Here's Google-owned YouTube's approach (with the nice added legalese that they retain copies of content even when videos are removed):

...by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.

Posted at 02:02 PM on Jul 14, 2011 by EQ

As an artists licensing agent, I'm concerned about how use of Google+ will affect existing exclusive license agreements in place. For example, a license we currently have that is exclusive to the Licensee - we cannot license the images to anyone else for any use whatsoever. How is that impacted - anyone?

Posted at 08:31 PM on Jul 15, 2011 by maria brophy

No need to worry if you understand the legalese. This interpretation is not correct: "So, this means that if you've taken pictures of a sunset, or fireworks, or your children playing with a toy - or anything - Google has the right to grab those images, edit them, publishing them, and re-sell them." Really now, Google doesn't want your stuff. There are plenty of legitimate sources and normal PR channels they use, and have the money to use, without them caring about stealing our creations. That's not what the terms are saying. Major photographers with obvious interest in protecting their copyrights have their stuff on g+, and Getty Images' lawyers approve of the policy. Here's a cartoon explaining in plain jargon what the policy means: http://tinyurl.com/not-stealing-your-stuff

Posted at 05:36 AM on Jul 20, 2011 by kate

p.s. To answer another comment that was saying you have to copyright everything before you post it: As I understand it, any creation is copyrighted the moment it is created. Filing copyright papers just gives you additional rights ($) should you have to sue to protect your work. Filing is just the legal proof. Your copyright exists whether or not you file.

Posted at 05:39 AM on Jul 20, 2011 by Kate