Does Google own your content?

This is something that I hope isn't true, but Josh Greenbaum reports that the contract governing Google Apps gives Google ownership of all content/data that goes into the Apps. I am a lawyer, but I don't want to believe the words I'm reading and am trying to find an alternative rendering of the language to make Google seem less grasping.

At first, everything is fine:

Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Google services and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate.

But then something very troubling hits:

By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, adapt, modify, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting Google services. Google reserves the right to syndicate Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services and use that Content in connection with any service offered by Google.

I don't like this. Not one bit. Google's applications are intended to make information available "to the public." The minute you share, I would argue, you've crossed that line. And that's when the user's rights evaporate....

For the purpose of "promoting Google services" is too broad--it gives Google way too much wiggle room. And then the follow-on sentence, reserving the right for Google to use one's content for other Google services...I like that even less.

Reading the company's data privacy policy doesn't remediate the above. It leaves a gaping hole for Google to drive its privacy invasion "truck" through.

One of my biggest problems with any proprietary content management system, and particularly Microsoft's Sharepoint, is that it locks a customer's content into the vendor's system, effectively making the vendor, not the user, the owner of the content. I had never thought Google would assume control of its customers' content, as well. But that is what its agreement says.

Are you scared?

[Savio.Rodrigues]

See comment on Joshua's blog

From: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12515-0.html?forumID=1&#38;threadID=38108&#38;messageID=699128&#38;start=-1" target="_newWindow">http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12515-0.html?forumID=1&#38;threadID=38108&#38;messageID=699128&#38;start=-1</a><br /><br />"I'm one of the founders of Writely, which became Google Docs. I don't think your reading of the terms of service is correct.<br /><br /> As we state in our terms of service, we don't claim ownership or control over your content in Google Docs &#38; Spreadsheets, whether you're using it as an individual or through Google Apps. Read in its entirety, the sentence from our terms of service excerpted in the blog ensures that, for documents you expressly choose to share with others, we have the proper license to display those documents to the selected users and format documents properly for different displays. To be clear, Google will not use your documents beyond the scope that you and you alone control. Your fantasy football spreadsheets are not going to end up shared with the world unless you want them to be.<br /><br />Posted by: schillace Posted on: 08/28/07"

[royrusso]

Does CNet own my content?

Google's license covers content you wish to make public. Nothing wrong with that.<br /><br />On the other hand, CNet owns this comment, and everything in my bio, regardless if I want it to be public or not.<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.cnetnetworks.com/editorial/terms.html?tag=ft" target="_newWindow">http://www.cnetnetworks.com/editorial/terms.html?tag=ft</a><br /><br />[http://You hereby grant us, our affiliates, and our partners a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, nonexclusive, sublicensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute, and publish Your Content and subsequent versions of Your Content for the purposes of (i) displaying Your Content on our sites, (ii) distributing Your Content, either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to download or otherwise acquire it, and/or (iii) storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge.|http://You hereby grant us, our affiliates, and our partners a worldwide, irrevocable, royalty-free, nonexclusive, sublicensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute, and publish Your Content and subsequent versions of Your Content for the purposes of (i) displaying Your Content on our sites, (ii) distributing Your Content, either electronically or via other media, to users seeking to download or otherwise acquire it, and/or (iii) storing Your Content in a remote database accessible by end users, for a charge.]

[mitchellkwhiten]

Google's rules

I guess the message google's rules send is: don't let google touch anything important to you. Too bad they took this stance.

[ProfessionalGun]

royrusso makes an excellent point, Matt.

As a lawyer - how do you respond to the terms laid out in c|net's own terms? . . . After reading royrusso's post - I'm frankly surprised by the finger-pointing. So let's hear it.

[Matt Asay]

Was I pointing fingers?

At any rate, I'm fine with CNET owning my content - that's what I signed up for. Explicitly. As for your comments on the blog being CNET's, you signed up for that, too. <br /><br />But there's a fundamental difference with Google's Apps. If I load a spreadsheet there and make it available to my team (which my company, Alfresco, does all the time), I have ZERO intention to make that "public." Yet because Google does not define that word ("public"), it's arguably open for Google to use as it sees fit.<br /><br />I actually believe this is not Google's intent or practice. But the language seems to permit it, which is troubling.<br /><br />Again, this blog is all about what I write and what you write back. CNET owns the rights to this, by your (and my) permission. But Google Apps...? Nah. When we upload a confidential spreadsheet, however, we don't intend for Google to own it and advertise against it or anything else with it.<br /><br />You don't see the difference?

[rhodeisland_rooster]

Yes, Google owns your content?

Google and all marketing companies have relished in the avalanche of data mined material--mostly behind the scenes and without most users direct or implied consent. Just look at the HUNDREDS of third-party cookies that polluted users' cookies directories (for those who are blind or ignorant and do not monitor cookies, for one thing). <br /><br />In many cases, by being third parties, they employ the parasitic, smoked mirror privacy tactics that the marketing industry thrives on. While the primary (first party) Web site might have might have tough-sounding pro-consumer pro-Privacy statements (if you can find their statements), many disclaim how third parties employ and handle them. They suggest you visit third parties to verify their respective Privacy policies. However, they rarely indicate who their third-party cohorts are! How convenient it is to employ double-speak and loopholes!<br /><br />They are all--first parties and third parties--counting on it being too painful of users sifting through the legal fine print--paragraphs and paragraphs of harder-to-read, more complex writing, double-speak, loopholes, and convenient vagueness to thwart most users from bothering to find out the truth.<br /><br />Smoked mirror marketing occurs where the first party makes vague references to "established relationships", "partners", "affiliates", "offers". This provides an OPEN backdoor for them to weasel their way into exploiting your privacy. <br /><br />Out of nowhere, you suddenly receive SPAM (unsolicited commercial email) from some company claiming to have a previously established relationship with you but you have had absolutely no DIRECT contact that company. Through smoked-mirror marketing and the guise of "protecting THEIR clients' privacy" (ironic!), these third-parties will not tell you how how they got your name and e-mail address. Hypocrisy is a very important part of marketing companies' business models.<br /><br />Disrespect, covert practices (they call it marketing automation--how sweet!), and double-speak are all parts of classic marketing business models. <br /><br />Have you ever attended a Direct Marketing Association (DMA) conference? I have. I know what I saw and heard! The DMA is so proud at P-R and double-speak. They have lobbied heavily to protect their members' desires to fax-spam and e-mail spam, while at the same time they have issues press releases proclaiming to be "anti spam". Hah, how convenient it was that they groped to redefine what they think spam is--but they didn't tell you that directly!<br /><br />Marketers consider your data that they gathered to be their property, bar none. That data have value to them. And we consumers "benefit" by this by having our privacy invaded--oops, our "automated marketing experience"!<br /><br />I have set up my hosts files to thwart the assault of dubious third-party garbage.