Posting Photos on Google+: How the Terms of Service Impact You

Thanks and while professional trolls claim my article was largely dismissed, the fact that it was quoted in the Washington Post and vetted by actual practicing IP attorneys proves differently.

Like most social services, Google+ takes a non-exclusive license in the photo when you put it on their system. This also happens when you post a photo on facebook.

I suppose you are all unaware of the interest Google, Getty, Corbis, et. al., had in passage of the Orphan Works Act of 2008, where, if the author of a photograph could not be found after a reasonable search, said photo could be claimed and used for commercial purposes. The Senate bill, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Lahey, passed without a single vote being cast, and the House version nearly passed the same way, except for a dedicated, ad hoc group of content creators who rallied to alert Representatives to its dangers to both "amateur" and pro photographers. If you hadn't registered each and every photo you ever posted to a social network, your photo could be harvested for commercial purposes. Don't worry, this legislation will come up again.

The harm posed by these t/c's is significant. Once posted they are out there forever, and you have little or no practical recourse to prevent how they are used by others. To say one still retains copyright gives a very false sense of security. If you haven't registered your photo with the copyright office, you have no practical recourse to stop a damaging, embarrassing or commercial use without a lot of time and out-of-pocket attorney's fees.

Why not post warning labels instead of issuing overly broad terms? The Google terms are in Google's interest only. Quite a lot of people think anything posted to the internet is in the public domain, right? Who's looking after your interests?

For instance, doesn't this paragraph seem to allow commercial use on syndicated sites where Google receives revenue:
“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."

I would say everyone needs to have concerns.

iMac,
Have you been on Facebook lately? I follow several highly respected professional photographers who put their work on Facebook. They may not be aware of these terms; after all, photographers are only human, too. Or the risk/benefit analysis may have told them the benefit is worth the risk. Although, I really doubt that Scott's target audience was professional photographers who do risk/benefit analyses of posting work on social networking sites....

Personally, I do not feel insulted by Scott's blog in the least. I thought the blog was rather innocuous, and I'm really surprised at the ill-will that it has stirred up (although, there are many blogs, articles, and Google+ posts that pretty much say the same thing Scott said in his blog). Scott writes his photography posts not only from the perspective of helping people improve their photography, but also from the perspective of helping hopeful and budding professionals get started. So I find it entirely reasonable to find such a post in Scott's RSS feed.

My question to Danielle Liss would be, how does section 13 of the Google ToS impact section 11.1, with respect to the irrevocability statement, and would you argue your position in a jury trial expecting to win?

Thanks for the article!

Interesting theoretical argument but are there any cases of a photographer actually being harmed by this potential licensing conflict? I have not heard of any which makes this seem like much ado about nothing. 

It's very simple TOS to understand folks I don't see what the big fuss is about, if I have a image that I plan on selling exclusive licence of why and the heck would I be posting it on a social network to begin with.

It's all well and great to warn people about a TOS of some new social network that hit the internet, but I would like to believe that if you are a professional photographer that your most likely not going to be posting your work to a social network anyway. To some degree the article that Mr. Bourne wrote was I think a bit insulting to the professional photographer intelligence, that may have not been Mr. Bourne intent but that is kind of the way it could have been taken. Perhaps some of the of the "professional trolls" as Mr. Bourne has tagged them to be are lashing out at him for insulting their intelligence. 

Thanks and while professional trolls claim my article was largely dismissed, the fact that it was quoted in the Washington Post and vetted by actual practicing IP attorneys proves differently. It is unfortunate that people who either simply can't understand or don't want to understand what I was writing about decided to use this situation to promote an agenda. I appreciate your even-handed recap of the situation Ms. Liss and hope that people who have legitimate interests in the subject heed what you've said. Thanks again.

With all due respect to Mr. Bourne, his article was very selective and seems to have been dismissed by most folks.  For a more thorough look at the Google+ terms of service and how they could affect photographers, I recommend Jim Goldstein's take on things.