This is the first audio I want to take credit for being chief segment producer for, and I think it is hilarious (but maybe I just know these guys). [permalink: http://basclebrothers.libsyn.com/webpage/bascle-brothers-interview-episode ]
Starring too many ppl and ideas I know to tag them all. I didn’t even work on this one (was cobbled together before my time).
telling (key) zombie backstory via another platform is brilliant thing to do
full Season 2 lnkage prep @ dreadcentral
This clarified a few things for me, but I disagree with the author that “Services” is a limiting term (especially since she cites no precedent here!). Google’s many services are so vast and encompassing that they can use any piece of content as part of an ad campaign for a new or existing service, and the more pedestrian-professional it is, the better!
I get a bit alarmed when I see creative minds getting too giddy over a product and not taking the time to do the appropriate legal research on that distribution platform before pushing content through it that they have not properly copyrighted and simultaneously turning to their blog to sing the praises of this new platform, unaware that the new messiah may fundamentally disagree with you about who owns your content.
Reviewing the Google TOS (something I’ve been needing to do for a good while before I resume use of my Blogger and Picasa), there does seem to be a good deal which would alarm those who would like to retain absolute rights over their content. If you don’t GAF, then Google services are for you, but they may be soon moving into fair use territory that very few people are prepared for (the legal language platform is already there).
Here are some possibly frightening revelations:
8. Content in the Services
8.1 You understand that all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated. All such information is referred to below as the “Content”.
8.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement.
8.3 Google reserves the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag, filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service. For some of the Services, Google may provide tools to filter out explicit sexual content. These tools include the SafeSearch preference settings (seehttp://www.google.com/help/customize.html#safe). In addition, there are commercially available services and software to limit access to material that you may find objectionable.
How I understand this: Google actually somewhat protects the content uploaded. If it came down to it (say your IP was hosted on a Google service) and you were in litigation with someone who had created a derivative work without your permission; you could theoretically (giving Google the proper coaxing from your legal aid) get Google to file on your behalf evidence of your versions of the content and a joint protection intent form or some such other thing I just made up that means “yeah this is probably this guy’s because our database says so”. On the other MUCH LARGER HAND, you’ve just granted Google permission to modify your work HOWEVER they see fit, including what looks like removal without notification (and in the days of ICE, looming PROTECT IP, and the need for MAFIAAfire extensions to get around Google censorship, this is a growing concern for anyone who dabbles in the taboo topic of the day).
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. 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.
What my low-ampere brain sparked out this: This is the section making the rounds on the blogs (check the trackbacks on this post http://photofocus.com/2011/07/06/google-plus-read-the-fine-print-before-you-sign-up/ ) cuz the photogs are scared of losing money for shit they were gonna sell to Getty if it got enough jizzes (or whatever circle jerkers want to start calling their +1 loads). Basically, my interpretation is that you keep your copyrights (if you bothered to get some legit ones and IMO, a Library of Congress certificate is the only thing that makes litigation a breeze, and the only thing worth time or money to obtain). The second you upload your content you gave Google an all-inclusive licensing deal for your content (at this point it has to promote their brand, but their brand is the internet so that’s pretty damn broad) and they do not have to give you ANY compensation or notification, and they can modify it however they want and also sell it to any company that they do business with. Granted you’ve got to have something worthwhile for Google to hunt down your content and exploit it.
LET’S DO SOME 1984/GATTACA/BRAVE NEW WORLD/PHILIP K DICK masturbating for a bit:
But let’s say you are a top wordsmith, even published and entouraged with a business manager, fiction agent, non-fiction agent, and screenplay agent, posting a sweet nothing to your lifemate or a warm greeting to your best friend on zir birthday via G+ and Google has recently partnered with a large greetings card manufacturer. Your sentimental drivel is actually something of merit and though not +jizzed by thousands because it is cloistered in a circle, it is still indexed by Google admin, who’ve been checking your shivers for something sellable. Cut to two weeks later, when a smartass friend sends you a digital e-card that they paid $2 for because it reminded them of one of your romantic phrasings; to your shock, it is what you sent your sweetheart on your circle jerk of one. Cut to two months later and the witty birthday greeting you shot on your friend’s jerk is a printed card, price tag of $6, including a small speaker that plays the song you spurted with it.
While that is a bit more paranoid vision of a very real future, a more immediate threat is that as soon as AdSense integrates (and you know that will happen as soon as + goes public), top ranking jerks with lots of jizz marks on them will not be getting checks and only G+ internet credit (not long-term academic credit or genuine artistic attribution) for the massive ad revenue their spurts will be attracting for Google. We (the vast majority of our society) have already capitulated to these terms on Facebook because the income derived (web visitors and regularly interacting customers) from building brand recognition on Facebook outweighs the value of the little items we give away (personal data mineable for ads, a few articles and images here and there). And for people who don’t own companies, they’re on Facebook as opposed to any other social media site that pays users for their content (these sites used to exist, dunno if they still do) for the same reason the large companies are - because EVERYONE is on Facebook, or at least enough people to grab a market share or ego boost.