“Google Plus may carry dangers for photographers,” reads the headline on The Washington Post. While we agree that the Google Plus Terms of Service could use clearer wording (in fact, all Terms of Service, everywhere, could!) and we applaud those who have taken the time to actually read through the darned thing, the conclusions we’re going to draw are different.
Should professional photographers stay away from Google Plus? Is Google going to steal the rights to your photos and stop you from making money from them? No, they’re not.
What’s the Issue?
The Washington Post cites a story from Photofocus, an online magazine about photography. The issue it had with the ToS were the sections that read, as follows (emphasis ours):
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.
Ooh, sounds scary, right?
Well, there’s another key part of the ToS that The Washington Post and Photofocus missed. And it’s an important one.
Detailed by Michael Zhang of PetaPixel, the previous articles took parts of the ToS out of context in order to support their arguments. The missing parts, said (emphasis his):
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.
11.2 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.
11.3 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 license shall permit Google to take these actions.
Par for the Course…
In truth, the ToS on Google Plus isn’t all that different than those on other photography websites, writes a commenter on the WaPo article. “In order to resize an image you have to have the rights to do so. In order to display an image, worldwide, in a format or dimension or crop other than the original you have to have the rights to do that,” they explain.
These weren’t the only sites digging into the Terms and trying to figure out what they mean. For example, on ColbyBrownPhotography.com, Brown writes that there are bigger benefits from the social marketing that could come from using the service than there are concerns. In addition, he says, “I don’t know anyone in their right mind that submits images onto the Web that have a higher DPI then 72 (300 is suggested for high quality printing) or images larger then 1024 pixels. Everyone I know, at least at the professional level, also has some sort of watermark on the images they publish online.”
That makes sense.
But You’re Not a Lawyer!
For those still concerned, the rallying cry behind their argument might go something like this: “But you’re not a lawyer!” Nope, we’re not.
But Denise Howell is. She’s an appellate, intellectual property and technology lawyer, blogger and podcast host who studied at UCLA. On her blog, BagandBaggage.com, she thoroughly dispels the panic surrounding the Google Plus ToS.
The main issue for photographers, she says, is that by granting Google any type of license to the photos, they would lose the option to grant another entity an “exclusive” license for use and display of that same work. (This is the case with blogger Scott Bourne of the aforementioned Photofocus, for instance.) However, that’s not a Google-only issue – it’s something photographers should think about before posting their content on any Web service, social or otherwise.
Howell also notes a couple of sections where she thinks the Terms could be clearer – specifically the parts about how content may be shared with “syndicated services” which aren’t defined (APIs? RSS feeds?) as well as the “promotion” license which seems to indicate photos can be used to promote the social network in ads and other materials.
Still, it’s not likely that Google would delve into your private “Family” Circle for its marketing material, so this is more of an issue with the wording than a privacy concern at this point, we would argue.
Overall, Howell says she’s not “personally overwrought” by the license Google asks users to grant. Bottom line: you probably shouldn’t be either.
