Sorry. That was from Apple's TOS. I'n sure you're OK with it now FWIW.
Interesting. It proves my point. I did not know the source of that TOS, I just knew it wasn't Google's. I hope you learn enough in the near future about rights management to understand the differences between the two.
But yes, I was fine with the TOS you had posted as it was not a rights grab like Google's.
They "run" everyone's campaign. It is what they do.
I don't know what your definition of 'run' is, but for me it's to be in charge of. Google is only a part of a company's advertising campaign. Advertisements can be put on TV, radio, print, billboards, signs on buses, trains, etc, etc. Google only helps with the Internet portion.
I don't know what your definition of 'run' is, but for me it's to be in charge of. Google is only a part of a company's advertising campaign. Advertisements can be put on TV, radio, print, billboards, signs on buses, trains, etc, etc. Google only helps with the Internet portion.
Unless you have a server that is hosting and determining what Google ads are served on what pages, Google is running the campaign. You set up specifics of what you want but it is Google that runs the campaign on the Internet. Google has entire pages on setting up your advertising campaign. You setup pieces put Google runs it.
I don't know what your definition of 'run' is, but for me it's to be in charge of. Google is only a part of a company's advertising campaign. Advertisements can be put on TV, radio, print, billboards, signs on buses, trains, etc, etc. Google only helps with the Internet portion.
Unless you have a server that is hosting and determining what Google ads are served on what pages, Google is running the campaign. You set up specifics of what you want but it is Google that runs the campaign on the Internet. Google has entire pages on setting up your advertising campaign. You setup pieces put Google runs it.
If someone is giving 'specifics' then why would Google use anyone else's photos?
Apple was near bankrupt before the iPod. The company was falling apart. They HAD to target Windows with iTunes. And it was one of the best decisions the company ever made. And surprisingly, Steve Jobs hated this decision but was overruled by everyone else on his team.
Apple and Google are fundamentally different companies. It's not fair to compare the great things about iPhones and compare them to the terrible things about Samsung phones (which are terrible in my opinion).
Android 5.0 was the biggest release of Android ever, and was quite buggy. 5.1, performs amazingly well.
People need to stop complaining about this or that feature and who copied it. It's pathetic. "Great artists steal" --Steve Jobs. Both Android and iOS have innovated off of ideas from each other, and that's a great thing. Both platforms have become so much better because of it.
If someone is giving 'specifics' then why would Google use anyone else's photos?
Didn't you watch the demo on Google Photo? The auto classification and organization alone would be a god send for selecting multiple unique images with specific content driven fully automatically through algorithmic processes. Add that to a "like" for social rating and it could be a gold mine and quality (and cheap) images.
Apple has successfully run the largest digital content store for more than a decade. They've run the largest digital software store for seven years now.
Should I want it, I have unlimited and unrestricted storage on Amazon included with Prime. No fancy interface like Apple/MS/Google has, but for cloud storage for photos, it looks to be a winner.
Google is quite these days about their marketing budget but here's an older story about it, Google also spent over 500 million dollars promoting the Motorola X when it first came out so you can only imagine what they spend today.
I can't wait until WWDC. If we are lucky apple might announce a fix for the nasty unicode bug that can crash iOS devices, break Apple Watches and cripple apps...... if we are lucky.
Apple has successfully run the largest digital content store for more than a decade. They've run the largest digital software store for seven years now.
Services, like: iCloud, iPhoto, Pages/Numbers/FrontRow online, etc., not the iTunes store.
In the Yahoo weather app, which is pretty good, the main weather screen per location has Flickr photos. I suppose, since the Flickr terms are similar to google, that these are not paid for even though they say copyright the owner and Flickr on the bottom.
That said why would somebody refuse?
This is a bit of a nerd-storm. My guess is many photographers wouldn't mind their non-personal landscape photoography getting used in advertising or in apps.
Not to get into the Google/Apple TOS details, but the Flickr/ Yahoo! weather app integration is opt-in - you have to submit your photo for review explicitly. So that example really doesn't come into play.
Where is the quote about "no plans" in the wording of the TOS?
LOL. I was referring to the TOS, but combining the official statements you mentioned with it makes the intent even clearer.
Related to that I just noticed Google has a very good plain English site that explains a whole lot about their privacy efforts, ad targeting, protection of your information and the like. Well worth a look thru if you'd like clarification on what they do and how they do it. I don't know how long that's been there. I suspect it's brand new and something they should have done before now. It helps dispense with at least some of the silliest "selling your information" claims.
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.
The TOS seems pretty clear to me: You retain ownership of your photos but you grant Google a perpetual license to use those photos. The question then becomes why does Google need a perpetual license to accommodate the use cases they have identified. In spite of the similarities in their TOS, Apple doesn't seem to need a perpetual license to accomplish the same things.
I really don't believe that Google is going to be using someone's photos for their own purposes without getting approval from the owner but it seems to me that their TOS allows for just that to happen.
Very excited for this year. iOS is by no means in need of major new features, but could do really well with a performance release. Optimizations and bug fixes across the platform. Same with OS X.
Apple couldn't get spanked on services if it tried to. Do you have any concept of the humongous percentage of users that do not CHOOSE what services to use? They just use whatever is on the device they own. Apple product usage puts all other product usage to shame, and thus service usage goes along too.
Compare whatever you want in your objective way, but its not reality.
Comments
willdoyoudonthavemuchinterestingtosayanyway
are you for real? you just hang out in forums and poop on other people's punctuation? "corpolite" indeed!Sorry. That was from Apple's TOS. I'n sure you're OK with it now FWIW.
Interesting. It proves my point. I did not know the source of that TOS, I just knew it wasn't Google's. I hope you learn enough in the near future about rights management to understand the differences between the two.
But yes, I was fine with the TOS you had posted as it was not a rights grab like Google's.
I don't know what your definition of 'run' is, but for me it's to be in charge of. Google is only a part of a company's advertising campaign. Advertisements can be put on TV, radio, print, billboards, signs on buses, trains, etc, etc. Google only helps with the Internet portion.
I don't know what your definition of 'run' is, but for me it's to be in charge of. Google is only a part of a company's advertising campaign. Advertisements can be put on TV, radio, print, billboards, signs on buses, trains, etc, etc. Google only helps with the Internet portion.
Unless you have a server that is hosting and determining what Google ads are served on what pages, Google is running the campaign. You set up specifics of what you want but it is Google that runs the campaign on the Internet. Google has entire pages on setting up your advertising campaign. You setup pieces put Google runs it.
If someone is giving 'specifics' then why would Google use anyone else's photos?
Apple was near bankrupt before the iPod. The company was falling apart. They HAD to target Windows with iTunes. And it was one of the best decisions the company ever made. And surprisingly, Steve Jobs hated this decision but was overruled by everyone else on his team.
Apple and Google are fundamentally different companies. It's not fair to compare the great things about iPhones and compare them to the terrible things about Samsung phones (which are terrible in my opinion).
Android 5.0 was the biggest release of Android ever, and was quite buggy. 5.1, performs amazingly well.
People need to stop complaining about this or that feature and who copied it. It's pathetic. "Great artists steal" --Steve Jobs. Both Android and iOS have innovated off of ideas from each other, and that's a great thing. Both platforms have become so much better because of it.
If someone is giving 'specifics' then why would Google use anyone else's photos?
Didn't you watch the demo on Google Photo? The auto classification and organization alone would be a god send for selecting multiple unique images with specific content driven fully automatically through algorithmic processes. Add that to a "like" for social rating and it could be a gold mine and quality (and cheap) images.
Apple has successfully run the largest digital content store for more than a decade. They've run the largest digital software store for seven years now.
Should I want it, I have unlimited and unrestricted storage on Amazon included with Prime. No fancy interface like Apple/MS/Google has, but for cloud storage for photos, it looks to be a winner.
Google is quite these days about their marketing budget but here's an older story about it, Google also spent over 500 million dollars promoting the Motorola X when it first came out so you can only imagine what they spend today.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304177104577303581175364006
http://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthof/2013/07/11/in-one-big-nudge-google-to-spend-500-million-to-market-moto-x-phone-report/
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-spends-most-of-its-ad-budget-on-tv-2014-4?IR=T
Still a far car from Samsung's 14 billion dollar ad budget.
Services, like: iCloud, iPhoto, Pages/Numbers/FrontRow online, etc., not the iTunes store.
That said why would somebody refuse?
This is a bit of a nerd-storm. My guess is many photographers wouldn't mind their non-personal landscape photoography getting used in advertising or in apps.
LOL.
Related to that I just noticed Google has a very good plain English site that explains a whole lot about their privacy efforts, ad targeting, protection of your information and the like. Well worth a look thru if you'd like clarification on what they do and how they do it. I don't know how long that's been there. I suspect it's brand new and something they should have done before now. It helps dispense with at least some of the silliest "selling your information" claims.
http://privacy.google.com/
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.
The TOS seems pretty clear to me: You retain ownership of your photos but you grant Google a perpetual license to use those photos. The question then becomes why does Google need a perpetual license to accommodate the use cases they have identified. In spite of the similarities in their TOS, Apple doesn't seem to need a perpetual license to accomplish the same things.
I really don't believe that Google is going to be using someone's photos for their own purposes without getting approval from the owner but it seems to me that their TOS allows for just that to happen.
Very excited for this year. iOS is by no means in need of major new features, but could do really well with a performance release. Optimizations and bug fixes across the platform. Same with OS X.
Apple is getting spanked on services.
Apple couldn't get spanked on services if it tried to. Do you have any concept of the humongous percentage of users that do not CHOOSE what services to use? They just use whatever is on the device they own. Apple product usage puts all other product usage to shame, and thus service usage goes along too.
Compare whatever you want in your objective way, but its not reality.