If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone using Google Crome yet??
And yes this is on topic as it directly affects photographers that upload
photos to web sites via a browser Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09...me_eula_sucks/ Burned by Chrome By Chris Mellor Published Wednesday 3rd September 2008 13:39 GMT Astute Reg readers have pointed out a Chrome condition of service that effectively lets Google use any of your copyrighted material posted to the web via Chrome without paying you a cent. Here's the relevant section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html): 11. Content licence from you 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence 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. Granting Google 'a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich. Suppose Google does this to material you have posted that's not yours? No problem. It has a get-out-of-jail card signed by you in section 11.4 of the EULA: 11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence. But you may be posting material via Chrome to your employer's site and it owns the copyright of anything you create in work time. What then if Google adapts, modifies and distributes it? Your fan has brown stuff all over it but none of it sticks to Google. Back in 2001, El Reg first revealed how Microsoft's new single sign-on Passport, used for all its web services including Hotmail, also appeared to grab your intellectual property. Microsoft issued a reworded (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03..._data_and_biz/) Terms of Use (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04...rage_prompted/) a few days later. Similar land-grabs have been attempted other operators including MySpace (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06...ragg_myspace/), amongst others. Copyright-sensitive sysadms may banish Chrome from their networks because of this. Google's been asked how it fits in with its general 'Do no evil' ethic but wasn't immediately able to respond - because they're not in their office yet.® -- God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone using Google Crome yet??
Atheist Chaplain wrote:
And yes this is on topic as it directly affects photographers that upload photos to web sites via a browser Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09...me_eula_sucks/ Burned by Chrome By Chris Mellor Published Wednesday 3rd September 2008 13:39 GMT Astute Reg readers have pointed out a Chrome condition of service that effectively lets Google use any of your copyrighted material posted to the web via Chrome without paying you a cent. Here's the relevant section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html): 11. Content licence from you 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence 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. Granting Google 'a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich. Suppose Google does this to material you have posted that's not yours? No problem. It has a get-out-of-jail card signed by you in section 11.4 of the EULA: 11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence. But you may be posting material via Chrome to your employer's site and it owns the copyright of anything you create in work time. What then if Google adapts, modifies and distributes it? Your fan has brown stuff all over it but none of it sticks to Google. Back in 2001, El Reg first revealed how Microsoft's new single sign-on Passport, used for all its web services including Hotmail, also appeared to grab your intellectual property. Microsoft issued a reworded (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03..._data_and_biz/) Terms of Use (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04...rage_prompted/) a few days later. Similar land-grabs have been attempted other operators including MySpace (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06...ragg_myspace/), amongst others. Copyright-sensitive sysadms may banish Chrome from their networks because of this. Google's been asked how it fits in with its general 'Do no evil' ethic but wasn't immediately able to respond - because they're not in their office yet.® Already modified. Someone just copied their EULA from other Goggle apps, without, apparently, reading the thing and realizing that this wasn't applicable to a browser. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone using Google Crome yet??
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message ... : Atheist Chaplain wrote: : And yes this is on topic as it directly affects photographers that upload : photos to web sites via a browser : : Original URL: : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09...me_eula_sucks/ : Burned by Chrome : By Chris Mellor : Published Wednesday 3rd September 2008 13:39 GMT : : Astute Reg readers have pointed out a Chrome condition of service that : effectively lets Google use any of your copyrighted material posted to the : web via Chrome without paying you a cent. : : Here's the relevant section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA : (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html): : : 11. Content licence from you : : 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in : Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By : submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, : irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, : adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and : distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the : Services. This licence 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. : : : : Granting Google 'a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and : non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, : publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you : submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich. : : Suppose Google does this to material you have posted that's not yours? No : problem. It has a get-out-of-jail card signed by you in section 11.4 of the : EULA: : : 11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power : and authority necessary to grant the above licence. : : But you may be posting material via Chrome to your employer's site and it : owns the copyright of anything you create in work time. What then if : adapts, modifies and distributes it? Your fan has brown stuff all over it : but none of it sticks to Google. : : Back in 2001, El Reg first revealed how Microsoft's new single sign-on : Passport, used for all its web services including Hotmail, also appeared to : grab your intellectual property. Microsoft issued a reworded : (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03..._data_and_biz/) Terms of : Use : (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04...rage_prompted/) a : few days later. Similar land-grabs have been attempted other operators : including MySpace : (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06...ragg_myspace/), amongst : others. : : Copyright-sensitive sysadms may banish Chrome from their networks because of : this. Google's been asked how it fits in with its general 'Do no evil' ethic : but wasn't immediately able to respond - because they're not in their office : yet.® : : : : Already modified. : Someone just copied their EULA from other Goggle apps, without, : apparently, reading the thing and realizing that this wasn't applicable : to a browser. I was wondering how to post stuff via my Chrome reader.. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone using Google Crome yet??
"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
... And yes this is on topic as it directly affects photographers that upload photos to web sites via a browser Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09...me_eula_sucks/ Burned by Chrome By Chris Mellor Published Wednesday 3rd September 2008 13:39 GMT Astute Reg readers have pointed out a Chrome condition of service that effectively lets Google use any of your copyrighted material posted to the web via Chrome without paying you a cent. Here's the relevant section 11.1 of the Chrome EULA (http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html): 11. Content licence from you 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence 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. Granting Google 'a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich. Suppose Google does this to material you have posted that's not yours? No problem. It has a get-out-of-jail card signed by you in section 11.4 of the EULA: 11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above licence. But you may be posting material via Chrome to your employer's site and it owns the copyright of anything you create in work time. What then if adapts, modifies and distributes it? Your fan has brown stuff all over it but none of it sticks to Google. A browser does not constitute a "service". |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone using Google Crome yet??
Yes.
Where are the menus? Has Google sided with Microsoft in the "Design software for three year olds" program? Most likey will uninstall Chrome this weekend. John |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone using Google Crome yet??
Atheist Chaplain wrote:
Yes, I started using it the other day. It is, as promised, quick and nimble. I used it on the WinXP machine to verify changes to the SI (uploaded from a Mac). I found, while storing photos from the web, that it would always direct them to the set download folder instead of the last selected folder. Images on photo pages (say PBase) seem render a little dull compared to Firefox or Safari. Every hour or so it goes into a mad thrashing of the hard disk (indexing?). This IO bounds the machine into laggardness... The inversion of the tabs paradigm is simply perfect (and that each is a separate process a needed evolution of tabbed / windowed browsing. I have had to kill Firefox (WinXP) and Safari (Max OS X) on more than a few occasions. I think Chrome is a very promising browser. May kill off Opera, will likely dent Firefox, but I'm not sure it will be adopted by the legions of the indifferent (or even content) who use IE. 11. Content licence from you 11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights that you already hold in Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content, you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through the Services. This licence 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. Granting Google 'a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich. I do hope that this was boilerplate running wild. It has been reported on blogs here and there as an issue. Google would do well to clarify the issue as well as come out with proper terms for the browser. (It may also be wrt the open source side of the project.) It may be irrelevant. If I post an image to Pbase using Chrome, then it does not pass through the greasy fingers of Google (unless there's something under the hood we don't know about). But, if one uses any browser to post content to a google run blog (say, xyz.blogspot.com) then that clause applies. That's how I read it, anyway. Netscape - was pretty good in its day MS IE - burned me Firefox - been with it from the beginning, and I like it. Opera - too sparse when I used it. Don't remember specifically why I swore off of it. Safari - strange behaviour and freeze ups. Can't copy the text of a link. (Can only copy the hidden link). Chrome looks to be the next browser for me. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone using Google Crome yet??
In article , Alan Browne
wrote: Granting Google 'a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich. I do hope that this was boilerplate running wild. that's exactly what it was, and it's already been fixed. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone using Google Crome yet??
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
... Already modified. Someone just copied their EULA from other Goggle apps, without, apparently, reading the thing and realizing that this wasn't applicable to a browser. Sweet, thanks :-) -- "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone using Google Crome yet??
nospam wrote:
In article , Alan Browne wrote: Granting Google 'a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content that you submit, post or display on or through' Chrome is coming it rich. I do hope that this was boilerplate running wild. that's exactly what it was, and it's already been fixed. Good. IAC, it won't be my main browser until the Mac OS X release... -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Anyone using Google Crome yet??
jaf wrote:
Yes. Where are the menus? There is a dropdown menu on the right upper side. It is fairly narrow in scope. I don't believe (never believed) that a programs quality was a function of its menus... -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New Google Owner agrees to use google for spelling purposes | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | March 19th 07 05:16 AM |
OT - Who uses Google Groups ??? | cjcampbell | Digital Photography | 1 | May 24th 06 01:20 AM |
Google it! | Helen | Digital Photography | 3 | February 22nd 06 11:21 PM |
Google it! | M Twain | Digital Photography | 0 | February 21st 06 06:44 AM |
OT - Big changes from Google | Jonovan Powell | 35mm Photo Equipment | 14 | August 5th 04 08:59 PM |