Upon logging into my Gmail this morning, a mandatory step in my daily routine, I noticed an alert that Google is consolidating the privacy policies and terms of service for all of its various online offerings. Being in the business of law, I felt compelled to read through the changes to see how Google will handle managing information about a user.
For those that are unaware, a privacy policy generally comprises a statement from a company regarding the handling of a user’s personally identifying information. The privacy policy is typically accompanied by a terms of service, which sets out the rules a user must abide by to gain access to a service. The terms of service may often define the legal relationship between a user and a service provider, the ways in which the service may be used, and the procedure to follow in the event the terms are violated.
Of course, being an intellectual property attorney, I immediately look to see how the rights relating to user owned copyrights and other IP is handled. Google’s terms of service reads:
Some of our Services allow you to submit content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
Sounds amazing, right? But, if you read on…
When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps).
So, if a user posts one of his or her copyrighted materials on onc of Google’s services, the user in effect grants Google a non-revocable license to use the material, essentially, how they see fit, for “operating, promoting, and improving service, and develop new services,” a pretty broad group of categories.
This peaked my interest as to how a user’s copyrighted materials are handled on other popular social sites, such as Facebook. Again, things start out rosy:
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings.
But the devil is in the details:
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
To my surprise, Facebook seems to make less of a grab on your copyrighted materials than Google. Of concern, Facebook claims the right to transfer and sub-license your content. However, it appears that any and all of Facebook’s rights in your content ends upon deletion of the content from Facebook’s system by the copyright holder and those with whom the content has been shared.
As a little bonus, section 5.6 of Facebook’s terms of service states, “You will not use our copyrights or trademarks (including Facebook, the Facebook and F Logos, FB, Face, Poke, Wall and 32665), or any confusingly similar marks, without our written permission.” So, allegedly, the word “face” is now owned by Facebook. If this turns out like the Superbowl-”Big Game” situation, we may have to start referring to our faces as our “head fronts.”



Comments
Posted On
Jan 26, 2012Posted By
GoldenrailI disagree with your conclusion that Facebook’s grab is less than Google’s. While Google’s license may last longer, Facebook’s is much broader. Google’s ilcenes is limited to the “purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones.”
Facebook’s license has no such limit and indeed we have already seen experiences where people’s copyrighted content has been used by Facebook for other purposes – i.e. letting companies use people’s copyrighted photos they have uploaded to Facebook in these companies’ advertisements. Under Facebook’s TOS, Facebook can do anything with any content you’ve posted on Facebook or somehow connected to your account, including selling it to third-parties. It would be hard to argue the same is allowed under Google’s TOS.
Posted On
Jan 26, 2012Posted By
Scott NymanGoldenrail,
You make a very good point, and I agree with what you’re saying. Facebook does seem to reserve a broader right to use a user’s content as they see fit, unlike Google, which limits the purposes for which the content may be used. Facebook is definitely no angel here. The grab on the rights I was referring to was more focused on Google’s assertion of a right to use content for basically forever, as opposed to Facebook’s mechanism for revoking the license. That, and Google’s uses allow for a pretty broad interpretation (for example, selling ads generates revenue to pay programmers to develop services)…
Thanks for the excellent comment!
Posted On
Jan 26, 2012Posted By
PatrickScott,
Imagine this (entirely conceivable) scenario:
Google modifies its terms and conditions to claim assignment or very broad license rights for any content “submitted” to its services, and considers its webcrawler to be one of those services. Since Google has told us for years that all website operators can easily “block” the crawler from reading your site, what if they decided that failing to do so was the equivalent of submitting your content to their search index, thereby conferring the license/copyrights obtained via the terms of service ….
I probably shouldn’t be giving them ideas…