Does Google own my blog if I post through Chrome?
By AndrewBoyd • Sep 3rd, 2008 • Category: Blogging tips, Recent postsInteresting thought - read this post on ReadWriteWeb:
The terms include a section giving 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.” That seems pretty extreme for a browser, doesn’t it?
So, shit. If I post to a blog that I own, on my own hosting, that I have contributed to for a couple of years, but I do it through the Google Chrome browser, does Google then own my blog? Or that post?
What do you think?
UPDATE: Google has changed the Terms of Service - see the explanation/apology from Matt Cutts (thanks Keiron for the link) and some background from ReadWriteWeb (update to the original post).
AndrewBoyd is a consultant by day and blogger by night. He loves good food, good wine, and discussing faceted classification schemes with friends.
Email this author | All posts by AndrewBoyd
According to THAT statement not only everything YOU create while using the browser, but everything you LOOK at via it too. It’s not a right of ownership however. It’s only a right to reproduce. They can’t take away your ownership.
However, having said that, there is no way this claim would hold up in any court. As the originator of the copyright, each copyright holder has the right to without permissions. Google’s terms do not make allowances for that fact. The truth is, it’s just a catch all statement so that they can cache and hold local copies of content without getting sued. All that would fall under fair use anyway.
So, poorly written perhaps, not technically a legally standing statement, but an interesting way to cover their butt in the ‘just in case’ world we live in.
Not overly concerned about my blog..But… take it a step up, rights to flickr images, artwork, stuff emailed via Gmail or other web mail service, your Credit Card.. that’s a very “WE ARE EVIL” T&C.
@Rebecca *cough* I DON”T want my CC number reproduced thankyou. This statement tends to lean towards giving them the right.
Hi Rebecca,
thank you for your comment.
If your reading of it is correct, the right to reproduce, adapt, modify is still a major concern - if they can take my content without attribution and redistribute it after modification then this is theft. And scarier still - anything you view - what does this mean? Do we alter someone else’s content just by viewing it? Perhaps now we do.
As to the legal stuff - the world changed a little for us here in Australia after the US free trade agreement - US companies have more legal right to pursue Australians now, and it is easier for them to do so.
Perhaps we trust, and we wait, and we keep an eye out.
Best regards, Andrew
Hi Gary,
It is potentially incredibly evil - they go from indexing the world to owning it. Maybe they really are the Cyberdyne Corporation after all?
And hell no, I do not want my credit card/banking details to be held by Google
Cheers, Andrew
Neither do I.
I’m usually not concerned about this sort of thing from Google, but this is a step too far.
Kerry
(which I hope they fix this before the Mac version is released)
[…] Andrew points out that effectively under the terms of this license, anything I post to this blog using the Chrome broowser may be republished by Google. This isn’t such a problem for this particular blog as it’s public anyway, but what about my drafts that weren’t meant to be published yet? What about all those with blogs that are effectively private online diaries? How about those pictures you’re uploading to flickr to back them up, but have no intention of ever making public? How about your (non-Google) email? Your locked twitter or plurk updates? Your bank account details? […]
Next up Google as a credit bureau and issuing credit cards. They will have all the information they need.
Back to Firefox I go……….
Hi Kerry,
I think you are right - they have gone too far.
And I too hope that they scale back the terms of service before this thing goes anywhere near OSX.
Best regards, Andrew
Hi Colin,
thank you for your comment - Google are heading for world-wide monopoly status, and could end up as the Cyberdyne out of the Terminator movies - the company that sells us to the machines who destroy us.
Best regards, Andrew
Hi Keiron,
I haven’t switched over yet, still waiting for the OSX version.
Best regards, Andrew
I’ve just posted about my first set of irks and annoyances with it - generally I quite like it - but it defintiely falls short of Firefox!
Hi Keiron,
just read http://www.skillett.com/index.php/596/google-chrome-first-impressions - good post, and I think it does need to be watched. It is still just one day post release, a lot of water will pass under the bridge before Chrome takes over the world.
Cheers, Andrew
I don’t read that as Google claiming ownership, rather it’s giving them the irrevocable (!) right to republish the information, modify it or pretty much do as they please. It’s a very fine line and I’m struggling to think of how to differentiate it.
Oh wait, I guess that means they can’t stick ©Google on it? And it would only be for posts you edit or view through Chrome?
I remain unconvinced that Chrome is the browser for me at the moment.
I found the following some interesting further reading:
http://tapthehive.com/discuss/This_Post_Not_Made_In_Chrome_Google_s_EULA_Sucks
Hi Sarah,
thank you for your comment.
I think that if someone can take something of yours without asking and do whatever they like with it whenever they want, questions about ownership pretty much fly out the window
I remain unconvinced too - no OSX beta!
Best regards, Andrew
Sounds pretty much like what they already do: reproduce (onto their servers), translate, modify (from PDF to HTML, for example)… and websites practically beg them to do it because they give traffic and free services in return.
Andrew, Interesting post by Matt Cutts:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/
Hi kristarella,
thank you for your comment. I think what worried a lot of people was that Google now had the legal right to do far more than just their normal index and repackage - that the content could be sold or otherwise exploited for directly commercial ends.
Anyhow, it looks like the crisis is over - ReadWriteWeb reported today that the Google Terms of Service have been changed for Chrome - reduced to a less scary level.
Cheers, Andrew
Hi Keiron,
thanks for that article - really interesting that Matt C started in a sort of “Well, of course we didn’t mean what we said, you dummies” tone and ended with “sorry guys, thanks for pointing out the confusing bits, we’re changed them”.
If only every big web company exec was as humble - what a difference it would make.
Thanks, Andrew
I agree completely. Matt really does give Google a genuine face to those that read his blog!
Yah, saw Matt Cutt’s post. Good thing it’s changed… a bit dodgy that it was included in the first place, but it’s a bit of a task to go through all that legal stuff I guess.