So obviously the simple English statement that begins the section saying what belongs to you remains yours alone means nothing even tho it's part of the TOS. Nor do public statements from Google execs quoted and printed by the press saying Google isn't using your photographs for advertising, has no plans to use them for advertising, and treats your photo collections as private and un-shared for any purpose you haven't specifically requested yourself. It's what they DON'T say that really counts, the "way way beyond that" stuff. We were lucky to have you to cut thru the legalese and decipher it for us. English isn't the easiest language for some.
So anyway no reason for us to continue talking about it. Lets wait for your predicted instances of Google using those pictures for their own nefarious purposes without the owners permission. If for some reason we don't see them be sure to bring'em to our attention as I'm sure you will. Should start any time now if you're correct in your translation. Forgive me if I don't wait for your news about it tho OK?
That only deals with exclusivity. Nothing else. Sigh. You upload, you give them permission. It is in simple to read English in their TOS. It's sad when people refuse to comprehend due to religious beliefs.
I'm sure when you purchase an "as-is" car from the used car salesmen and then he/she tells you about the warrantee that will fix issues you find after the purchase, you buy it and you will believe him/her as well.
It's funny that Android easily had a successful polishing update, unlike ios 8 which has poor implementation of new features and ended in a downward crash. With negative attitude towards the update with it's poor performance, crash fest, etc. Apple saw that it was so bad they had to open up the ability to downgrade to ios 7. Plainly copying widgets on android just placing it on the notification tray which had existed for ever on Android. Android pay is not a copy of Apple pay as Android pay/Google wallet was the first to have existed. Apple copied Google again! Google wanted to create the fingerprint style but Apple buying the best fingerprint technology ended that. Now that Huawei is supplying them the technology it is worthwhile to start it. Stupid you say that Apple is making google services better when I know nobody who likes to use maps and only uses Siri as a play tool and not a utility. Google Now on the other hand has much better 3rd party integration letting it work with you, not against you. The reason updating is slow is because Android is open source not a software behind bars. You can update if you want. At least google doesn't hid the true results, unlike Apple removing the devices that are no longer supported from it's pie charts. Nothing Apple has made has been original, just a rehashed Android feature. - From someone who doesn't make incredibly biased work.
Has anyone bothered to look at the schedule for WWDC (in the App)?
Apple up to their usual tricks again with numerous sessions having the "To be announced" tutke and others getting the humorous ones like "Mind = blown", "Patience is a virtue", "This one is worth waiting for", "You'll be talking about this one" and many others.
Apple must have a lot of new stuff to talk about given the large number of sessions that haven't been named.
And to Relic, you can brag about your K1 Jetsons and Android and how powerful they are, but my two girls (9 and 11) are doing things on their iPads that you could NEVER do with Android and a dozen K1's (Jetson or Denver). So bragging about some obscure thing nobody really does isn't going to change the fact Google I/O was a snooze fest this year.
You can't complain about Google stealing ideas from Apple
Sure can. Just watch me.
Maps on phones, Google first Apple second.
Of course, because the iPhone didn’t come before Andr… oh, wait.
Mobile payments, Google first Apple second.
Are you delusional?
Big phones, Google first Apple second.
Hooray! Google was the first to make products too big to be used and which are only purchased by people too stupid to drink water without spilling! Your point?
Photo editing software that syncs to the web, Google first Apple second.
They have a vast sales team. Of course they pitch to big potential clients.
Thanks . You've always been pretty accurate so I'll take your word for it. I know they have sales teams pushing Ad Words but did not know they also create campaigns for larger clients. So they're not just a simple advertising company but a full-fledged creative ad agency. You have me curious now, Never saw any mention of them from clients crediting them for successful ad creations.
Exclusivity is the word here, and it appears to me that is given up. You still own the image, but that same image, once published to Google, is freely available to the public.
Good legal reason for this; Google never has to worry about your copyrighted image propagating through the internet without your permission; you already gave that to them.
Sorry. That was from Apple's TOS. I'n sure you're OK with it now FWIW.
[SIZE=14px]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">"No plans"? Not the same as "We absolutely will not", is it?</span>
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]<span style="line-height:1.4em;">LOL. Even you are a little more skeptical than that....</span>
[/SIZE]
I'm a realist. I completely agree they could someday change the TOS if they change their minds about monetizing content., just as any company could. Until then it's clear to me they cannot do so as it's written. I don't see any confusion in the wording.
I'm a realist. I completely agree they could someday change the TOS if they change their minds about monetizing content., just as any company could. Until then it's clear to me they cannot do so as it's written. I don't see any confusion in the wording.
Where is the quote about "no plans" in the wording of the TOS?
Last year's headline: "Apple's 2014 WWDC live stream sets a low bar for nobody to leap, because everyone else has figured out how to do proper live streaming already in 2015."
This year's headline: "Apple's 2015 WWDC live stream will be on YouTube"
I always get stunned when I read drivel like this- you must be being purposefully decetiful, (ie. lying through your teeth), or you're just insanely ignorant. And trust me, claiming how big of an "Apple fan" you are and how "objective" doesn't change that. There's almost too much horse-shit to address, and too much thoughtlessness in your asinine list, but just briefly:
Maps: Uh, Google wasn't the first to do maps either. There was yahoo, mapquest, etc. And the Google Maps app on the first iPhone in 2007 was designed and developed by Apple, in collaboration in Google, using their data. The first USEABLE maps on any mobile phone, ever. But you obtusely list "maps on phones" as something Google invented. Oh, and you can't fucking "copy" something like that- it's probably the last thing that can be "copied". Apple decided to develop their in-house solution for a myriad of reasons, not least of which was to have control of their platform and not having to give in to Google's advertising and privacy implications. It clearly was a risky endeavor, took fuckloads of work, and still being heavily developed to this day- it's not a concept that can be "copied", because it relies more on collecting an insane amount of data, more than any particular idea. But you ignore all the obvious points above and throw this in the list, just because you're so "objective".
Mobile Payments: Wow, even worse than the first. and a testament to your intellectual dishonesty. Google Wallet has been out for YEARS, and has gained almost zero traction. Apple Pay does not bear a single damn resemblence to that service- and within a few months of that being released, Google has already COMPLETELY REDEVELOPED their payment solution to be identical, changed the name (Android Pay- what a shock) and have started the work on implementing fingerprint recognition in the OS, a tentpole of Apple Pay. Apple Pay is the end result of so many hardware/software components that Apple has been working on for years, including developing a secure element, Touch ID, passbook, agreements with banks, credit card companies, and retailers, NFC, etc. Apple released something not just to release it, but as a result of a shitload of thought and consideration, and work on every single level, that bears no resemblance to Google's failed service. And, it is infinitely more widely adopted and used that Google Wallet ever was, which has now been scrapped by Google in favor of "Android Pay". And yes, you place in his Google's column, defined as "copying". Another testament to your shameless lack of integrity.
Big Phones: Uh, what? "Google First"? What the **** does that even mean? I remember HTC made big phones. Sony did. Samsung did. Dozens of OEMs did, in a desperate attempt to differentiate themselves from Apple's superior offerings in the only way they knew how. Why do you give credit to Google for having the first "big phone"? Android was spammed to everyone, and OEMs used it as they pleased. Apple could have "copied" big phones if thats the intention, back in 2010. But they didn't, they stuck to their game plan, ignored that, and released the iPhone 4, then the 4S, then the 5, then the 5S, while trolls like you were shrieking at them and mocking them for not releasing large phones. They did so when the product and the technology made sense, not as a kneejerk reaction to what anyone else was doing. If someone wants to "copy" something, they do it within a few months to a year, and you can literally find that is the case every single time Apple is copied, whether is continuity features, or Apple Pay (Samsung's versions announced within months).
Photo editing: Uh, there was absolutely nothing like iCloud photos and editing functionality that syncs and updates all local copies on all devices, but nice try using "picasa" as an equivalent. A nice try, and a massive lie. This is from someone who has sed picasa since it was first released and loved it, but finds your comparison laughable.
My post was not for you, but to educate others who may not be aware of how egregiously you attempted to rewrite history in a desperate attempt to drive an agenda. Liars like you couldn't care less about actual facts and honesty. Anyone can shit out a list like you did, in such a lazy and meaningless way.
Well, I guess you never used the Google Maps Mobile app that existed before maps on iPhone. I'm not talking about a website. The only real difference (and it was a big one) was touch. I never used the Yahoo or Mapquest apps, so I can't speak for them (Only used their map sites). I'm not sure they existed back then.
Mobile payments - Does the typical user really care about th technology that makes it work, or do they just want something that's easy.
Big phones - Read my lips, no new taxes. If you need to Google (or Bing it on Safari) that, then you obviously couldn't understand the point.
iCloud Photos has been out of beta for a few months. Yes, it is better than software and services from 13 years ago.
I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. Thank you for adding the definition of "Copy."
That's boilerplate legal-speak though. They HAVE to publish that... or someone would sue them over the silliest thing.
Whoa a person who trusts google! Can I sell you to the highest bidder. I think that's called slavery!
use, host, store: keeping your photo on their servers.
reproduce: make copies of your photo for their various CDNs and servers.
modify, create derivative works: making thumbnails for your photo.
communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display, distribute such content: ummmm... it's a online photo sharing service.
It may sound scary... but all those things must happen with a photo sharing service.
And I know everyone thinks Google will use your photos in their next TV commercial or magazine ad... or sell your photos to a stock photo website... but does that really happen?
I'm a realist. I completely agree they could someday change the TOS if they change their minds about monetizing content., just as any company could. Until then it's clear to me they cannot do so as it's written. I don't see any confusion in the wording.
What part of: "They don't need to change the TOS" don't you get? The TOS ALREADY allows them to use the pictures for their own purposes. It is 100% clear. Just because you still own the image does not mean you did not give them rights to use as specified in the TOS. This is very common of many photo hosting and sharing sites (especially the free ones) and Google's is no different. Just accept the truth of the matter and don't hide behind "trust".
Comments
They don't 'run' anyone's campaign either.
are you kidding? well you ain't gonna get it from me. just skip my comments, i won't mind.
willdoyoudonthavemuchinterestingtosayanyway
it's good to want things...
andgoodtowantclarityandsomethingwrittenthatiseasilyassimilatedbutnothatstoomuchtroubleforyou
They "run" everyone's campaign. It is what they do.
That only deals with exclusivity. Nothing else. Sigh. You upload, you give them permission. It is in simple to read English in their TOS. It's sad when people refuse to comprehend due to religious beliefs.
I'm sure when you purchase an "as-is" car from the used car salesmen and then he/she tells you about the warrantee that will fix issues you find after the purchase, you buy it and you will believe him/her as well.
Apple up to their usual tricks again with numerous sessions having the "To be announced" tutke and others getting the humorous ones like "Mind = blown", "Patience is a virtue", "This one is worth waiting for", "You'll be talking about this one" and many others.
Apple must have a lot of new stuff to talk about given the large number of sessions that haven't been named.
And to Relic, you can brag about your K1 Jetsons and Android and how powerful they are, but my two girls (9 and 11) are doing things on their iPads that you could NEVER do with Android and a dozen K1's (Jetson or Denver). So bragging about some obscure thing nobody really does isn't going to change the fact Google I/O was a snooze fest this year.
They have a vast sales team. Of course they pitch to big potential clients.
You can't complain about Google stealing ideas from Apple
Sure can. Just watch me.
Of course, because the iPhone didn’t come before Andr… oh, wait.
Are you delusional?
Hooray! Google was the first to make products too big to be used and which are only purchased by people too stupid to drink water without spilling! Your point?
Is this trolling?
Quote:
"We have absolutely no plans to do anything from a monetization or ads perspective," said Google Photos boss Anil Sabharwal.
"No plans"? Not the same as "We absolutely will not", is it?
LOL. Even you are a little more skeptical than that....
Google's spending on advertising is on par with Apple and Microsoft. Over 200 million a year
Source?
I'm a realist. I completely agree they could someday change the TOS if they change their minds about monetizing content., just as any company could. Until then it's clear to me they cannot do so as it's written. I don't see any confusion in the wording.
Where is the quote about "no plans" in the wording of the TOS?
This year's headline: "Apple's 2015 WWDC live stream will be on YouTube"
I always get stunned when I read drivel like this- you must be being purposefully decetiful, (ie. lying through your teeth), or you're just insanely ignorant. And trust me, claiming how big of an "Apple fan" you are and how "objective" doesn't change that. There's almost too much horse-shit to address, and too much thoughtlessness in your asinine list, but just briefly:
Maps: Uh, Google wasn't the first to do maps either. There was yahoo, mapquest, etc. And the Google Maps app on the first iPhone in 2007 was designed and developed by Apple, in collaboration in Google, using their data. The first USEABLE maps on any mobile phone, ever. But you obtusely list "maps on phones" as something Google invented. Oh, and you can't fucking "copy" something like that- it's probably the last thing that can be "copied". Apple decided to develop their in-house solution for a myriad of reasons, not least of which was to have control of their platform and not having to give in to Google's advertising and privacy implications. It clearly was a risky endeavor, took fuckloads of work, and still being heavily developed to this day- it's not a concept that can be "copied", because it relies more on collecting an insane amount of data, more than any particular idea. But you ignore all the obvious points above and throw this in the list, just because you're so "objective".
Mobile Payments: Wow, even worse than the first. and a testament to your intellectual dishonesty. Google Wallet has been out for YEARS, and has gained almost zero traction. Apple Pay does not bear a single damn resemblence to that service- and within a few months of that being released, Google has already COMPLETELY REDEVELOPED their payment solution to be identical, changed the name (Android Pay- what a shock) and have started the work on implementing fingerprint recognition in the OS, a tentpole of Apple Pay. Apple Pay is the end result of so many hardware/software components that Apple has been working on for years, including developing a secure element, Touch ID, passbook, agreements with banks, credit card companies, and retailers, NFC, etc. Apple released something not just to release it, but as a result of a shitload of thought and consideration, and work on every single level, that bears no resemblance to Google's failed service. And, it is infinitely more widely adopted and used that Google Wallet ever was, which has now been scrapped by Google in favor of "Android Pay". And yes, you place in his Google's column, defined as "copying". Another testament to your shameless lack of integrity.
Big Phones: Uh, what? "Google First"? What the **** does that even mean? I remember HTC made big phones. Sony did. Samsung did. Dozens of OEMs did, in a desperate attempt to differentiate themselves from Apple's superior offerings in the only way they knew how. Why do you give credit to Google for having the first "big phone"? Android was spammed to everyone, and OEMs used it as they pleased. Apple could have "copied" big phones if thats the intention, back in 2010. But they didn't, they stuck to their game plan, ignored that, and released the iPhone 4, then the 4S, then the 5, then the 5S, while trolls like you were shrieking at them and mocking them for not releasing large phones. They did so when the product and the technology made sense, not as a kneejerk reaction to what anyone else was doing. If someone wants to "copy" something, they do it within a few months to a year, and you can literally find that is the case every single time Apple is copied, whether is continuity features, or Apple Pay (Samsung's versions announced within months).
Photo editing: Uh, there was absolutely nothing like iCloud photos and editing functionality that syncs and updates all local copies on all devices, but nice try using "picasa" as an equivalent. A nice try, and a massive lie. This is from someone who has sed picasa since it was first released and loved it, but finds your comparison laughable.
My post was not for you, but to educate others who may not be aware of how egregiously you attempted to rewrite history in a desperate attempt to drive an agenda. Liars like you couldn't care less about actual facts and honesty. Anyone can shit out a list like you did, in such a lazy and meaningless way.
Well, I guess you never used the Google Maps Mobile app that existed before maps on iPhone. I'm not talking about a website. The only real difference (and it was a big one) was touch. I never used the Yahoo or Mapquest apps, so I can't speak for them (Only used their map sites). I'm not sure they existed back then.
Mobile payments - Does the typical user really care about th technology that makes it work, or do they just want something that's easy.
Big phones - Read my lips, no new taxes. If you need to Google (or Bing it on Safari) that, then you obviously couldn't understand the point.
iCloud Photos has been out of beta for a few months. Yes, it is better than software and services from 13 years ago.
I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. Thank you for adding the definition of "Copy."
I'm a realist. I completely agree they could someday change the TOS if they change their minds about monetizing content., just as any company could. Until then it's clear to me they cannot do so as it's written. I don't see any confusion in the wording.
What part of: "They don't need to change the TOS" don't you get? The TOS ALREADY allows them to use the pictures for their own purposes. It is 100% clear. Just because you still own the image does not mean you did not give them rights to use as specified in the TOS. This is very common of many photo hosting and sharing sites (especially the free ones) and Google's is no different. Just accept the truth of the matter and don't hide behind "trust".