Google Drive vs. Dropbox Terms of Service

Post by rjsamson » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 7:00 PM UTC

nbm wrote: post #80

excuse-me wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it Facebook that used someone's photo of themselves in an advert - claiming that it fell under "we can use your images for any purpose" ?

I suspect you are misremembering either a real story about an advertiser using someone's photo without permission or rumours based on it that occasionally become popular. An advertiser once, against the FB terms of service, used a user's profile picture in their advertising. The advertiser was banned from the platform. Here's a news story that might jog your memory on this: http://mashable.com/2009/07/17/facebook-dat…

Post by cube13 » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 8:16 PM UTC

toddmorey wrote: post #58

stuartmemo wrote: post #6

Complete FUD. Best article I've read on this is from The Verge. Google would be unable to create backups or thumbnails for example without these rights. http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/25/2973849/google-drive-terms...

No, it's not. "Publicly perform"?! Tell me in what reasonable backup scenario would google need the right to publicly perform your content? It's not reasonable at all; it's egregious and honestly insulting. Look, I get it: the chances of Google acting on these rights are small and the PR backlash for abuse would be brutal. But this is a great example of a legal department _far_ overreaching in their corporate protect…

Post by ceejayoz » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 8:23 PM UTC

NelsonMinar wrote: post #76

ceejayoz wrote: post #12

Dropbox had the same issue in 2011. Their TOS was very similar to Google Drive's, for the same reasons - lawyers putting CYA language in. http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846 http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=867

Yeah, and Dropbox fixed it after public complaint. It's amazing to me Google would launch with a license with the same problem.

Post by streptomycin » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 8:45 PM UTC

abraham wrote: post #72

ctdonath wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As phrased, the agreement would let Google publish, for open searchable access by the world, all files from all users. Indeed, methinks Google's whole underlying goal in all their endeavors is to mine data they'd not get thru other means. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be hard-pressed to believe Google isn't (or just hasn't gotten there but intends to someday) scouring every GMail, every Chrome OS click, every OCRed image…

> As phrased, the agreement would let Google publish, for open searchable access by the world, all files from all users. This would be corporate suicide and Google won't do this unless they fall to the current status of the like of AOL. At which point we will all have moved on to the next shiny object.

Post by demetris » Thu, Apr 26, 2012, 8:52 PM UTC

timothya wrote: post #44

There's been several articles on this topic, and I don't understand why they all seem to ignore this line in Google's TOS: "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." These terms are across all of Google's services, and of course they need to state these sorts of things to keep th…