Twitter, blogs, RSS, social and professional networking - so many sites, so many tools, how do you pick and choose (and do you have to) and what are best ways to use these tools to maximize business and benefits? Join our group to learn and share. To get email and/or RSS notifications when new content is added to the site, please subscribe using the links to the right under 'Subscribe to this Group'.
I feel the same way. I am focused on LinkedIn and to a lesser extent Facebook. Google is great for gmail, google docs, google apps, google voice but I am staying away from +
Hi Rory: I don't share your apprehension. The terms of service you quotes mainly speak to display and distribution rights, two rights in the bundle of sticks of copy ownership that by virtue of the online medium need to be more flexible than with traditional means such as print, radio, or film.
With Google +1 buttons appearing on every search result, when a user +1's you or you participate in Google+ sharing links through your +page, to allow the seamless transfer of information, Google is going to have to alter metadata and other parts of your Content to do so. There is no loss in ownership over the right to exploit your content; you are not permitting Google to sell the content you share through Google+ and cut you out of the deal. What you are granting them is a right to allow users to display, distribute, and promote your content through Google+ the same as you would through Twitter, Facebook, or Linkedin share buttons.
I have not done a comprehensive comparison between Google+ terms and other social site terms (nor do I plan to - I doubt Google+ is an evil ploy to steal my brilliant work), but I'm willing to bet there is nothing so dastardly in the Google+ terms that requires content creators to stay away from it any more than any other social site.
What about others - are you staying away from Google+ because of paranoia? You may want to read this regarding online obscurity: http://slki.ru/77M
Mike, you're absolutely right. As is often the case with new user-generated content sites and services, there is a significant amount of misunderstanding that occurs when people read the terms of use. We faced a well-publicized flap at MySpace a few years ago when artists misinterpreted grant-of-license language in the TOS to mean that the site (then newly owned by News Corp.) could "steal their music" and profit from it.
These discussions tend to disregard inconvenient language. For example, the G+ TOS does *not* give Google the right to do "whatever it wants" with UGC. The two most significant sentences are:
1) "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." This "sole purpose" restriction is highly significant; for example, for a visual artist, it means Google couldn't go and sell posters or T-shirts with the artwork. The revocability question is more complex as it refers to additional terms that aren't immediately obvious, but the mention of revocability is glossed over in most critiques that I've seen.
2) "...make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content...." Insert the implied word "ONLY" and again this is much ado about nothing. Making such changes as are *necessary* means things like reformatting, translating, encoding, etc. This language implies that Google does *not* have the right to make any changes other than those that are "necessary."
There's a good discussion of this issue on Google+ (natch) started by "MySpace Tom" Anderson over the weekend. See my fuller comments there, and those of many others, at http://bll.la/IG .
I accepted the invite to Google+ right away because I had to see what all the fuss was about. You are right, Rory: not a great track record at Google. I regret the time that I wasted on Google Wave. You are also right about reading TOS. Some lawyer I am: I usually just accept without reading, unless it is for my kids' accounts.
Thanks for your comments guys. I guess some of you are quite a bit more liberal with your content than I (especially given the track record at Google!)
It's an interesting point you raise Lisa - not many folks do read TOS. And with increased use of social media, user generated content is being re purposed more, sometimes to promote products. Should we expect people to simply accept this sharing of their content as part of life and therefore not to 'worry', or should we expect TOS of increasingly length?
One of our Rainmaker Advisors, Kara Smith, brought a post on the Google+’s Terms of Service flap to my attention the other day. It’s by Rory Webber, who writes the Social Media for Lawyers blog at Martindale.com and the title...
Hi everyone: I wrote a bit about my early observations in case you're really bored. ;-) It's called: Google Plus: It's Early But Interesting - www.myrlandmarketing.com/.../google-plus-its-early-but-interesting
Thanks for the link Nancy. I've been in G+ for a few weeks now and am really loving it. Preparing to release a 7-part series on it soon - stay tuned!