Updated: Does Google Have Rights to Everything You Send Through Chrome?
Our coverage of the new Google browser Chrome over the past few days has touched on issues like browser performance and business implications for Firefox - but one thing we hadn't noticed until this evening was a curious section of the Chrome Terms of Service.
The terms include a section giving Google "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." That seems pretty extreme for a browser, doesn't it?
Update: Since this controversy has erupted, Google has removed the offending section of the Terms of Service. It seems that the default Google service TOS includes these kinds of claims, even though they may not be as appropriate in some circumstances as in others. We're not sure when such claims would be justified but we're glad they've been removed from Chrome. Here's the original version of the End User Licensing Agreement.
Surely This Will be Changed
We're hoping that this section of the TOS will be changed quickly. Such terms might make sense for user uploaded video sites, for example, but language like this always raises concerns. In the context of an entire browser it seems absolutely absurd. Passwords, financial information, you name it - these kinds of things Google can't be given any right to, can they? Though it's framed in terms of "promoting Google services," we don't think that condition is a clear enough limit on the rights being claimed.
We've long voiced concerns about Google and privacy. We'll be watching to see when this changes, though, and we assume it will promptly.
UPDATE: The wording on Chrome's TOS is very similar to the TOS of Google Docs, which caused a similar outcry in Aug 07. At the time a Google Docs rep replied in our comments: "As we state in our terms of service, we don't claim ownership or control over your content in Google Docs & Spreadsheets, whether you're using it as an individual or through Google Apps. Read in its entirety, the sentence from our terms of service excerpted in the blog ensures that, for documents you expressly choose to share with others, we have the proper license to display those documents to the selected users and format documents properly for different displays. To be clear, Google will not use your documents beyond the scope that you and you alone control. Your fantasy football spreadsheets are not going to end up shared with the world unless you want them to be."
Below is the full section of the Chrome Terms of Service in question. Thanks to the anonymous commenter who pointed this out to us - we love you commenters!
11. Content license from you11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which 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 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. This license 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.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
ShareRelated Entries
2 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.readwriteweb.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4801
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Sounds like whatever i put through the browser they can do whatev with.
You would think that they would have had a team of lawyers doublechecking it for a launch that is so high profile for Google. Unless it's under the Google "beta" strategy of launch now, fix later.
This is a concern and must be changed....i dont understand why google put that complicated terms... why do they need to play with our data ? Dont you think its a major privacy concern if they track everything what we surf or submit ?
I spose it all hinges on what Google define as being a "Services" and how this differs from the current TOS for their existing services if its just referring to those.
If by "Services" they mean "the whole internet" then I think we have a problem.
I think you haven't read the TOC carefully. In Section 9, it says that you own the rights to any content you submit through Google's services (which includes Google Docs, Picasa, Google Video, etc.).
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.
The "update" in the post above wasn't there when I posted my comment. Google's response in the update pretty much says what I said in my comment.
It seems to me that their browser is one of their "services" and the wording off 11.1 ("through the Services") seems to indicate that by using the browser to send this information they have access to it.
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.
Yes Blake good point, the issue is, is the browser considered Google Software? I would say that by the definition yes and hence our reading of the TOC sets off alarm bells. I think I and a lot of other people would feel more comfortable if Google just excluded the browser from that clause.
It seems that Google will use it to understand better internet browsing. The data goes into the system where they will use it for whatever they want, eg. services.
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!
I don't think Google is mining data from Chrome. See Matt Cutt's post on this:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-communication/
Hi Guys,
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.
@ReadWriteWebMan:
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.
@Leo
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.
1. Google needs to put in this clause in order to reproduce your content through Chrome.
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.
:) TOS should be clear and understandable.
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?
This is a really odd thing to have in a browser terms and conditions especially the bit about licensing content displayed. That could be at odds with the licenses that already apply to that content and could also be a license the viewer isn't legally entitled to grant.
Posted by: Paul Jacobson
|
September 2, 2008 9:40 PM
First, let me say that Marshall stole my thunder!! LOL. I was totally writing this up when I found this on my new favorite feed, thanks to @drewolanoff and readburner for introducing me to Marshall.
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
Paul,
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 ?
Thanks for sharing such wonderful info. Have a good one man.
@leo...
"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.
Listening to the video now I'm home - an absolute classic line:
"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 ?
This seems totally unnecessary/inappropriate. The services as Google refers to have their own Terms of Services which one has to agree to use them regardless of which browser they will use the services with. Why do it again in this browser. As others said, other browsers don't need this so hard to justify why Google needs it. My guess is that by services they refer to browser specific services like searching from the url bar etc. that is tied to google, if so, it should be a lot more restricted.
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?
Maybe we should consider two separate elements in the browser:
- The page itself that is displayed
- The address bar (omnibar), search function, toolbars
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.
Being Open Source and the code's license should be enough: there is no need for a TOS in Chrome, and such a TOS existing is from redundant to bad.
Posted by: Marcos Marado
|
September 3, 2008 2:27 AM
I don't see what the fuss is...
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?
@Michael
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.
This exact same clause is there when you sign up for a new gmail account as well.
I am a lawyer, and work for a company that makes open source software used by media creators, and so I took a keen interest in the license agreement.
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.
Google gives our visitor numbers on public pages to everyone. What will stop google to publish the sites we visit? Can someone please tell me "who will guard the guardians?"
@Michael,
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
Doesn't Google uses this privacy statement in all of the their products? With that being said, has anyone ever heard of Google abusing anyone's privacy?
I haven't.
A company I know of is suing Google over this very language. They have gone so far as to block off access to Google Docs for their employees. While I don't agree that Google is going to have much financial interest in going maverick with everyone's content (it'd be out of business in a quick hurry), Google is shooting itself in the foot with this.
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.
>Doesn't Google uses this privacy statement in all of the >their products? With that being said, has anyone ever heard
>of Google abusing anyone's privacy?
>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.
It is NOT necessary to give anyone any rights to publish content on the web.
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.
I don't think they are worried about Chrome being the de facto browser as much as their concept being adopted by competitors .... http://tinyurl.com/6akfsf
A workaround for this would be to compile Chrome/Chromium for yourself without the auto-updater, wouldn't it? Might take a bit of effort, but wouldn't you be exempt from the EULA that way?
Posted by: Cyvros/fyc
|
September 3, 2008 8:54 AM
A workaround for this would be to compile Chrome/Chromium for yourself without the auto-updater, wouldn't it? Might take a bit of effort, but wouldn't you be exempt from the EULA that way?
Sorry about the double comment. No idea how that happened.
If Google can assert its legal terms just by publishing them (on something less than its homepage), then maybe users can assert their own terms of privacy protection just by publishing them! What do you think? --Ben http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/05/google-privacy-policy-terms-of-service.html
I feel like I already debunked this anonymous commenter once already when they were posting over on Mashable as MashableMan. Here's what I said in that comment:
"@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.
@ReadWriteWebMan, @Mark... I'm somewhat confused by this discussion (though I'm glad we're having it).
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
Posted by: factoryjoe.com
|
September 3, 2008 10:00 AM
What is missing from this discussion is a realistic discussion of actual business risk. The actual business risk that Google is going to hijack your valuable content and publish it without your consent is minimal. Like everyone else, their hair stands on end when they stick their finger in an electric socket.
@ Matt Cutts
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.
I went ahead and answered this question on my "common Chrome conspiracy theories" post at http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/common-google-chrome-objections/
"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."
With that clause Chrome is dead to me. period.
Posted by: Geoff Longman
|
September 3, 2008 10:15 AM
I think it doesn't matter "WHY" we give Google the "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free" and God-like so on and so forth right.
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!
Geoff Longman and fjpoblam, that is not Google's intent. I feel sure that the Google Chrome team will either do some messaging to clarify or they'll change the TOS to be more clear. Either way, Google does not want the rights to everything you do in Chrome.
Feel free to take the word of an 8+ year Google employee on this. :)
Matt, you didn't debunk anything. If and when a chrome developer or lawyer stops by to clarify things, they will clarify the matter at hand.
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.
matt,
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, please read carefully, entry 28, above. Your "intent" and your "word" would be nice to be able to take, but legal *substance* is what will count, in the end. We thank you for your kind attention.
1 2 Next