If by "Services" they mean "the whole internet" then I think we have a problem.

But in Section 11, which you quote above, it gives Google a *limited* license to publish, display and promote the content you create and submit on their services ... for the *limited* purpose of displaying and promoting your content.

All that means is that if you submit a photo on Picasa, or a video on Google video, or whatever, that Google has the right to publish this on the web. Without this right, your photos or video would never be seen by anyone, even you, because Google would be running the risk of being sued by you, the content creator, for publishing your work.

This limited right to publish your work is in all of Google's TOC, afaik, for the different services in which they publish your content.

But then technically you could argue that you're not using the browser, you're using the web application. Seems like a very fine line though, I'd need to know how a lawyer would read that.

1.1 Your use of Google’s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the “Services” in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google. “Google” means Google Inc., whose principal place of business is at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States. This document explains how the agreement is made up, and sets out some of the terms of that agreement.

Google is a data whore lol. So this encompassing statement gives them access to what they want. Knowing Google, they use the data to make good judgments on what to do next.

So RELAX!

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-communication/

Yeah Im the commenter that point this out (RRW can verify IP if want). I'm a JD (Juris Doctor) Student specialising in IP Law and always read these things - particularly because similar Terms exist on Youtube in respect of videos.

I was intrigued as to whether this would be passed onto something as massive as a browser - and was amazed when I was reading through the terms.

Blake and James have interesting points above - however I believe these are overshadowed by the very top line - "These Terms of Service apply to the executable code version of Google Chrome. " This statement must be read in conjuction with the following statement - thereby expressly inferring that it applies to Chrome.

My reading and understanding of these TOS, prima facie, implies that under Clause 11 - anything you enter into the browser 'which is a Google product/service' can be used by Google whenver they want - now or in the future.

It's enough to never want to use this browser. Send an email through yahoo using chrome - Google Own it. Post a facebook message - Google own it. Send an idea about a new business through Chrome - Google own it. Yes these are exagerations - but they are not limitations under that clause.

Until Google remove such errenous conditions - no a chance in hell I am using that browser.

Google does *not* own content you submit through Chrome under this TOC.

Section 9 of the TOC, as I said, gives you ownership of your own content.

Section 11 gives them a *limited* license to *display* and promote the content. Otherwise it couldn't be published on the web! Section 11 doesn't give Google ownership of the content.

I would argue against that. Yes, you retain copyright - the terms state this. But the terms also state that you are providing a irrovocable licence for Google to do what they want.

This is the context of "own" I am referring to. Yes, if I type an email to a friend I "own" the copyright over the content. Obviously, since the fundamental aspect of Copyright law is the person creating the content retains ownership.

But under Clause 11 Google has "a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services"

So - legally, they are able to do what they with it after this point. It shoots their privacy argument directly in the foot since they can do whatever they want with it - REGARDLESS of whether I am using 'actual' Google sites or not. i.e. Chrome is service, and therefore all content entered throug Chrome (relevant to Clause 11) gives Google open reins.

So if I am using Yahoo mail, through Chrome - what I enter gives Google the right to reproduce it. My question to you is - is this fair ? Google has produced a product and is attempting to enforce rights on people using websites which AREN'T Googles.

Why include it ? This is my argument. Google is all about open source and "freedom" - yet they include a massively restrictive clause like this.

2. Google doesn't transmit any of your content from Chrome to Google's servers. Again, see Matt Cutt's post on this.

3. Reproducing your emails would violate Google's privacy policy, also contained in the TOC.

I think you're reading more into Section 11 than is there. This is standard TOC language for Google -- otherwise they couldn't publish any of your content, on the web or via Chrome.

The fact that we are arguing about it means that Google need to fix it.

Read it from the "Mum, Dad" point of view - prima facie, it reads like Google has a ridicolous amount of rights.

Does IE or Mozilla do this ? No.

So why is Google?

Second, I am leaning towards reaadwritewebmans arguement. The mere fact that Google announces in section 9 of the EULA that you retain the rights to your content, but in section 11 Google implies that they can use it how they see fit as long as it is transmitted through their services worries me. I have always been concerned about how much power we give to these companies, and how we mindlessly click through TOS and EULAs because we desperately want to use a shiny, new service. I'm not saying that Google or any other company is necessarily out to "GET US", but what I am saying is that it never hurts to read what you are signing. Google is an information company, and as such, they create applications and services that either ask for your permission or inform you that they will be collecting information if you wan

Agree. Google doesn’t need a clause like this to "display content" on the web.

Its a browser - its a tool which I use through a connection I have with my ISP to access the internet. If data isn't being sent back to Google - why do I need to give Google any right over what I enter into a browser? They do not need a licence for me to "display" content I enter into a browser. Why do they? Why does Google even care what I enter into the browser unless there is some ulterior motive.

Firefox/IE certainly doesn't seek to gain a royalty free licence from what I enter into when I am surfing the web. There is absolutely no need for Google to include a clause such as this in browser software. The operation and functional aspect of a browser in no way requires Google to have a licence over what is entered into it. If it did – every other piece of browser software produced would have a similar condition – which they don’t because quite clearly, its not needed.

When I access Yahoo – why do I need to give Google a licence over what I type? It’s one thing for Google to demand this on services they own – yes, then the “we require this to publish items on the web” is half arguable (I still contend this is a weak argument) – but in services they don’t own?

I would love Google to explain HOW and WHY they need a licence such as this for browser software ?

"Section 11 gives them a *limited* license to *display* and promote the content. Otherwise it couldn't be published on the web! "

what? The terms make sense for something like Docs. But Chrome is a software app. It's NOT content. So when they (and you) talk about 'the content' what are you talking about? If I post something on my own blog in Wordpress.... using Chrome... does Google need a license granting them rights in order to do that send the servers GETs, POSTs, etc so that the interface carries out commands and posts the contents? Of course not. But that TOS seems to assert that Google has rights to the content. And if they mean the content of something like a blog post done on my server using my software.... that's silly.

The provision makes sense when seen in the light of hosted content producing services like Docs or even Blogger. By sharing the data there you're asking them to publish it either to t he public or to selected parties. They're just codifying that and making sure that they're covered. This seems different to me.

"The browser is just an application, its just a tool for people to interact with the sites they use and care about. So the browser should not be self important - we wanted to ensure that people forget that they are using a browser"

Now compare this "statement" to the Clause 11 - completely conflicting statement.

Why include Clause 11 ?

Also, I find the "open source" part a bit confusing. What is open source and what is not? Is the whole browser code available as open source, or is it just components? What would it take to build an alternative binary without all this nonsense introduced with the ToS?

Thinking about it, would they risk to have Chrome rejected because of this kind of EULA? I guess not.

Their aim is, in my opinion, to collect information on your behavior and have more and more data to push forward targeted ads. Monitor your web activity to control which pages are the most visited and develop applications and services following this data.

They are probably referring to the omnibar and search buttons.. but I agree they need to specify it.

I'm using Google Services exactly because I want them to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which I submit, post or display... That's the point. I want that. I grant that. They do it for me. I don't sue them later for doing what I asked all along.

Seriously... Am I missing something?

There are 2-3 Billion people who use Google services, and who may "potentially" one day use Google Chrome given Googles massive reach.

The point that you are missing is that people should not have to subject themselves to this sort of TOS. Sure, its OK for you - you are happy with Google reproducing etc your content.

What is not fine, is the fact that a browser in no way requires this sort of TOS. It's just Google forcing their policies on end users in a way that is definitively not "Do no Evil"

Open and transparent is one thing - demanding people give Google all right to their content except basically copyright - even when using non-Google services - thats another thing entirely.

Google has done something highly unusual with the license agreements. Note the plural, as there are two.

One is the BSD license agreement. That applies when you download the source code, to gain access to the binaries etc. (A separate link from the first license agreement)

The other license applies if you do a "normal", Yes, Uh-huh, Yes, install of the Chrome software.

This software license is actually a EULA for a web site, not a software license. It is similar in nature to what Google uses for its web services, like GMail and Google Docs.

The EULA for Chrome is clear. Any content you send through the browser is subject to its terms. And those terms grant Google a perpetual, world-wide, etc. copyright to your work.

This is an extraordinary. It would be like Nokia claiming copyright to all of your phone calls placed over one of their cell phones.

Or Canon claiming copyright to all of your pictures.

Or Microsoft claiming copyright to anything created in Word.

As far as I'm aware, no other browser tries to make a similar claim. In fact, I'm pretty sure no other software tries to do this.

This raises a raft of very thorny issues, but in the meantime, I would, as a media creator making original works, be very very weary of using Chrome to upload any of my content to the Net.

Presumably Google's intentions are benign. But intentions don't matter. The legal effect does however.

The problem with section 11 is that it gives Google too much leeway in how they can potentially use the content your browse (GET) or create (POST) through the browser. They may never use this right, but there's nothing stopping them from using it in the future.

The whole copyright arguments falls apart under clause 11 since it essentially says that you retain the copyright but that they can reproduce your copyrighted content anytime anywhere they want. This is like buying a book from an author and giving you the right to reproduce the content for your own purpose without any regard to the author because the author has given you total rights to the content.

And I also agree with whoever posted above the comment about the need to change section 11 since we are arguing over it. This ambiguity needs to be clarified.

--Jim

I haven't.

If anyone at Google is listening, please reconsider your TOS not only for Chrome but for the entire range of Google services.

There are too many lawyers in this world.

>I haven't.

Just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't or won't in the future. By using the browser you agree to allow them to use your content without control and compensation.

I see way too many problems with this TOS and browser. If Google is collecting data through the browser, then this is new and very ugly ground they are broaching. The world needs to know what they are in store for. Most people will just shrug their shoulders and use it.

Why can't they just make a browser to serve web pages without collecting the data/content a user uploads as IE, Safari and FireFox do? No folks, they can deny it all they want, but based on both what the browser does and the EULA states, Google is up to no good.

If i decide to upload content to a hosting provider for others to view or download the content then *I* am the only one who needs the right to do so. The service provider is only the service provider, providing *technical* infrastructure like a phone company providing me with the ability to make phone calls or a mail company allowing me to have my content sent via snail mail to every household in town, the publisher is always *ME* alone.

Every sane provider that doesn't want to be sued every other day for what their users decide to do has a disclaimer stating clearly that they are in no way responsible for what type of content their users wish to transmit over their totally neutral wires, cables, routers and servers.

This is how things work in the real life, outside of the google universe.

"@MashableMan, every time someone reads a new product license they say “Eeek! Google/Adobe/Microsoft is claiming to own all your data!” And that idea always gets debunked a day or so later. Can we avoid that whole conspiracy theory for once?"

Apparently, no--we can not avoid this whole conspiracy theory for once. :) Marshall, at least you pointed out one of the previous times a similar conspiracy theory was raised and then squashed.

I'll ask someone from the Chrome team or their lawyers to stop by and clarify that no, we don't want rights to everything you send through Chrome.

1. No one is forcing anyone to download and run Chrome. Therefore, Google can use whatever license it so chooses; it's up to the consumer of the application to read over the EULA and decide if they're willing to exchange the rights Google demands for the use of the Service.

If we think what Google is asking for is extreme, we can debate that, but it's purely an academic exercise. Perhaps Google will listen and clarify the language, perhaps not.

2. I'm curious about the distinction of calling a browser a "Service" as opposed to a "Product". If the browser itself is just another Google service, then it would seem that the same terms that apply to Google Docs would apply to Google Chrome. Is it the downloadable aspect that's confusing things?

3. While I can sympathize with @ReadWriteWebMan's take on things, the simple litmus test for me is syncing Google Bookmarks... Given that I create these on the clie

nice... I totally believe that Google has no evil planes... now. But nobody can see into the future - that is why not good will or trust but only law and licenses matter.

And I am sorry - the text of the license is clear, it says what it says and that is not acceptable to me... and apparently many others would agree.

"Q: Dude, this anonymous commenter said that Google claims that they own everything you touch when you run Chrome! Should I be worried?
A: No. I debunked that misconception last night in a Mashable comment and this morning in a ReadWriteWeb comment. Google does not want to claim the rights to everything you surf or do in Chrome, just like we didn’t want it the time before with Google Docs. I’m sure that other Googlers will clarify that point more officially. It is good that people pore through the license and ask these questions though, because if something looks worrisome then we can use that opportunity to make it more clear."

Google would have us believe that WHY is all that matters, and that "do no evil" is the element of trust.

What matters is, solely, THAT one gives Google the God-like right. Not good. Once given, the opportunity for abuse is always and will always be there.

Forget it!

Feel free to take the word of an 8+ year Google employee on this. :)

And the matter at hand is that Google is taking copyright over content sent through the Chrome browser.

What happens then when you go to sell an original work that you previously sent through Chrome? Typically, a producer/investor will want to ensure that they are acquiring an exclusive license - that no one else has a claim to the copyright of the work. That is almost always a standard clause in such an agreement.

If sent through Chrome, you cannot grant such copyright, there goes your deal.

nice try. But section 11 is pretty clear and, frankly, what you say on your blog isn't binding - the EULA is. I fully understand those terms in relation to Docs. They don't seem to have any place in a browser EULA (and let's dispense with the fiction that Chrome isn't a browser, ok?) Simply put, incorporating section 11 is either 1) sloppy cut & paste legal work or 2) a good bit of overreaching.

If you need certain rights in order for the Omnibar to function then get explicit and spell out those rights and those rights only. Don't have some associate grab something that might work off the Docs EULA that claims you have a license to all of the content I publish using Chrome.

Matt, you use word "debunked" but I don't see why - you just keep denying the problem but I don't see any arguments backing up your position.

The sentence "a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services." seems to be clear.

If browser is considered to be Service (which is stated at the beginning of that EULA), it means that if I use Chrome (Service) to "post" anything to any website, I have to give Google right to "reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute" it. If I "display" any website, I also agree to give Google right to "reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute" it" - which means that I can use Chrome only to see my own website.

Basically it means that Google claims to have right "to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute" anything people browse through or do in their browsers, including bank statements, private emails, passwords etc.

Maybe some of these are made less dangerous by some reference to other agreements (...unless this agreement is in breach of some other agreement...) but I don't think it's enough... license itself should be "safe" and acceptable without need to use other agreements.

Ok... where am I wrong? Please use some arguments, not just statement denying what I just said and talks about conspiracy theories.

This TOS is plain RIDICULOUS. No sane person will use a browser with such a clause. The browser works nice, but in 3 minutes it will be uninstalled from my system. These people have no shame at all!

I'd like to know - from the perspective of a start-up web services company - should I have my lawyers draft equally overarching EULAs for my site and its associated services?
Is this a "legal design pattern" we should all take away from google and apply to our own companies?

Best,
John Durkin

If the NSA were to *request* that Google "tap" your browser (which given the Patriot Act isn't much of a stretch) then Google may simply be protecting themselves from getting caught in the middle. (You can even envision someone at Homeland Security musing about how much simpler it would be if you could "listen in" at the source. No messy cracking encryption keys, tracing packets, ... just a nice little gear.)

It wouldn't have to be DHS or NSA, it could be anyone showing up on their doorstep with a subpoena.... at least is this country.

Sorry, couldn't resist >:)

I am quite certain you are a very decent chap. And talented to boot. But we are not talking about trust or intention here. It would be great if we could all hug each other, but there is a simple fact, in the way it is phrased currently.

I create material, I use my browser while creating material that does not belong to my customers, not me, which means that the *legal* standing of
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
is unclear to say the least.

Trust me, I love Google's products, I use them privately, but there is a reason why I don't use Gmail (privately, I do) when working.
Some of my customers are very sensitive of IP rights and this one is simply unheard of.
You do not find anything like this in Firefox' ToS (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox2-en.html)

If you address this in such a manner that you change the ToS, we may discuss again.
However much I trust you, even if I do not know you, your personal ensurance is not something I can bring to my customers, nothing personal.

Only problem is... if Google can't see your content, why have it up? I won't find it either

Sin, I've certainly mentioned this to folks at Google and asked what steps they can take to nip this misconception in the bud so that everyone can feel confident using Google Chrome without any concerns.

With all due respect, I don’t think you’ve debunked anything. In addition to the draconian copyright clauses, the EULA also includes a standard “Entireties” clause.

Section *20.2 The Terms constitute the whole legal agreement between you and Google and govern your use of the Services (but excluding any services which Google may provide to you under a separate written agreement), and completely replace any prior agreements between you and Google in relation to the Services.*

This is why intentions, clarifications and opinions from Google lawyers about their not having any nefarious plots are irrelevant. The Terms trump all.

@factoryjoe

It’s agreed that Google can employ whatever terms they wish in their EULA, and people are free to choose or not choose to accept those terms.

However, a user license is typically comprised of “expected, normal commercial terms’ that codifies the understandings that a reasonable person has when they go to use the product/service. Reading a standard EULA is more likely to trigger a yawn then an eeek.

However, the expected terms for using a web browser would not include your assigning the copyright to any work you transfer through said browser.

Accordingly, the Chrome’s EULA is attempting to dramatically alter the existing legal paradigm.

It would be the same if your ISP attempted to assert copyright to anything you sent or received over their network. This, I would suspect, would attract a lot of negative attention.

We all know that few people read EULAs. This is why the law requires you to draw specific attention to any clause that is not a normal commercial term for the kind of contract at issue. BIG RED letters for instance, with a ‘Lord Denning’ red finger (no, not that kind of finger) pointing to the offending passage is, at a minimum, needed by the benefactor to have any chance of actually enforcing the provision.

Leaving aside the enforceability of the contract, I think it behoves Google to draw attention to the change they are making to the normal understandings so as to ensure that the vast majority of users, who of course wouldn’t know a EULA if it hit them in the head, have at least have some inkling of what they are getting themselves in to.

While most won’t care, some will, especially those creating original works.

@John Durkin

Not if you want to keep your users.

I'm a fan of Google's many innovations; but even if some saintly combination of Santa Claus/Buddha/Barack Obama asked me to click through a TOS like this one, I wouldn't. Nor would I install it. Though I sound wayyyy more paranoid than I'd like, the amount of data already in the cloud about each of us is astounding; to volunteer the rights to it, even in some ambiguous way, simply to try a shiny new browser -- when there are other quite great ones out there not asking so onerous a toll -- is folly.

I'll wait for the non-sellyoursoul version.

May we call it our own source code by changing one bit of code? May we change the icon from its familiar Microsoft colors to a slightly off shade and call it our own? I suspect, not.

I think, Google will not agree to these rights to users, any more than users should accrue their rights, to Google.

Purported Google employees in Google Groups often suggest we "trust" them to get back to us, and almost just as often, it doesn't happen. In other words, Google needs to go beyond mere "trust" and resort to firm and binding statements in the TOS.

"In order to keep things simple for our users, we try to use the same set of legal terms (our Universal Terms of Service) for many of our products. Sometimes, as in the case of Google Chrome, this means that the legal terms for a specific product may include terms that don’t apply well to the use of that product. We are working quickly to remove language from Section 11 of the current Google Chrome terms of service. This change will apply retroactively to all users who have downloaded Google Chrome."

Thanks to everyone that raised this issue so that Google could answer those concerns.

I have done this before: when making an application I have used a EULA from something else I have made to use on the new app, even though they don't exactly match, and then written a new setup when I get past Beta...

It just gives a general set of terms.

Google will definitely review the TOS it releases when Chrome surpasses Beta stage.

Stop worrying yourself about it. Use firefox or safari until Chrome has a full release, and check its TOS then...

Stop worrying about the small print...

Joe

I didn't bother to read to the last comment before giving my opinion.

Ignore my post.

Now if only I could successfully download and test the browser.

Please take a look at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10031703-56.html, and on TOS at http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html right now:

11. Content license from you

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.

Amazing the power of ReadWriteWeb has. Thanks guys for taking notice of my original comment and writing a post on this!

Seems nothing has changed on this page ... http://www.google.com/chrome/eula.html

? i.e. Clause 11 is still the same ?

Now all that appears is JUST:

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.

Great!

these applets are hidden deep in root files and robotically are programmed to send google your personal and browsing data, etc.

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?loc=US

These TOS are exactly the same as the TOS Chrome debuted with, lending some credence to google's claim that they were simply copying TOS from another product and that some parts may not really apply to this particular product. Still, what exactly do the lawyers at google do all day? Maybe they're using one of those fancy new write-once-run-everywhere legal frameworks?

Anyway - the points (11.1, 11.2) still prevent me from ever using google sites or any google apps for anything requiring a modicum of security or secrecy. If google really intends to penetrate the enterprise market with its apps and sites, they're going to have to edit the TOS on more than their Chrome browser.

No, that's really not true, "google already knows more than you could ever dream."

Well done Google.

for french speakers :

11.1 Vous conservez les droits d'auteur et tous les autres droits en votre possession vis-à-vis du Contenu que vous fournissez, publiez ou affichez sur les Services ou par le biais de ces derniers. En fournissant, publiant ou affichant le contenu, vous accordez à Google une licence permanente, irrévocable, mondiale, gratuite et non exclusive permettant de reproduire, adapter, modifier, traduire, publier, présenter en public et distribuer tout Contenu que vous avez fourni, publié ou affiché sur les Services ou par le biais de ces derniers. Cette licence a pour seul but de permettre à Google d'afficher, de distribuer et de promouvoir les Services et peut être révoquée pour certains Services, selon les dispositions des Conditions supplémentaires applicables à ces Services.

11.2 Vous admettez que cette licence inclut le droit pour Google de rendre ce Contenu disponible pour d'autres sociétés, organisations ou individus partenaires de Google pour la mise à disposition de services syndiqués, ainsi que le droit d'utiliser ce Contenu en relation avec la mise à disposition de ces services.

See Chrome’s Evil Terms of [Software as a] Service for the list.

--rj

The wording in section 11 of the Chrome EULA was very "scary" for many, many people and yet that wording still exists with almost all the other Google apps. Why is the same wording not "scary" for those who use these apps?

I believe they already claim, or want to claim, that after 5 years all of your Google-mediated search history, purchase history, gmail, etc., becomes THEIR business records, with which they can do as they please.

Current US government intrusion into my privacy are quite enough already. I don't need this kind of intrusiveness from a private megacorporation that's already in bed with world governments when it comes to censorship and violation of privacy. I have switched a portion of my search usage and any half-way confidential emails to other services. Unfortunately, Yahoo stinks as a search tool by comparison; and the Google employees who defected and set up Cuil.com have an even worse stinker. We need some real competition from people who are not in it for world dominion.