Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« More Free (Online) Books | Main | Google Backs Up On Chrome EULA »

September 3, 2008

Google, Chrome, and Copyright

Email This Entry

Posted by Alan Wexelblat

I'm filing this under "IP Abuse" because I'm starting to think Chrome, Google's new wonder-browser, is a tool for (potential) copyright abuse. I was first tipped to this by Edward Champion, who blogs under the title "Reluctant Habits." In a post dated September 3, he picks apart the Chrome EULA and does not like what he sees.

In essence, Google has applied the same EULA that it uses for Gmail to everything you put into the Chrome browser. What, you never read the gmail EULA? You do realize it gives Google copyrights in your email, right? Yeah, it does.

Anyway, here's the relevant clause from the Chrome EULA:

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.
So, technically, you still keep the copyrights for things you create in the Chrome browser - like, say, blog entries. But you give up to Google the right to redistribute that content, including using it for commercial purposes.

That's potentially very bad. Should Google ever choose to make use of those rights it could cause problems ranging from simple embarrassment to loss of serious value. For example, I work at a company that makes Web-based tools for securities traders. If someone runs our tools in a Chrome browser, does that mean Google owns (or thinks it has any rights to) my customers' financial data? Should I be telling my customers not to run Chrome? Does this principle apply to anyone who ever does any home banking in the Chrome browser?

This condition seems completely unnecessary for a browser. I can't find any similar language in the Firefox EULA. The Internet Explorer EULA has language some people object to in terms of disabling and potential interference, but it doesn't seem to contain any terms claiming ownership of content. WTF, Google?

Comments (7) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: IP Abuse


COMMENTS

1. Justy on September 3, 2008 10:35 AM writes...

I'm curious what the use of "non-exclusive" means in this context? Added to "This license is for the *sole purpose* of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services..." [emphasis mine], I would read it as the user having all rights to the work he or she has submitted through the Services while giving Google *non-exclusive* rights to use such in their promotional materials.

Now, I agree that use of what may be private in promotional materials (esp. with regard to Gmail, etc.) is a worry aspect, I think I've presented a plausible way to read that paragraph.

Permalink to Comment

2. Jay on September 3, 2008 10:38 AM writes...

Quelle surprise.

Permalink to Comment

3. T. D. on September 3, 2008 11:05 AM writes...

Justy, to your question regarding "non-exclusive," this is only to say that Google cannot prevent you from using your own copyrighted material, or licensing it to other people. I'm an entertainment attorney and we frequently use non-exclusive licenses; for instance, a producer will grant an artist/label the non-exclusive right to use his/her name & likeness in connection with the album, the implication being that the producer is free to produce other records and have his/her name used with it as well.

Funny because I read through the license yesterday after downloading Chrome and was also taken aback by the same provision. I can understand granting a license for displaying and distributing the services, simply because the service necessarily must make copies of the material and transmit them in order for the browser to work. However, one might think that to the extent Google needs such a license to carry out my commands, e.g., transmitting the text for this post, such a license is implied on a case-by-case basis and no further grant of rights is necessary.

The promotional use is what is especially concerning - why would Google ever need a blanket license from me to promote their services? Even in a commercial deal between two parties for a finite product, such promotional uses are frequently reigned in. Using my producer example from above, we would allow name/likeness use for promotion of the album, but oftentimes will not permit institutional advertising for the label.

To your issue concerning confidential information, this provision has to be reconciled with Google's privacy policy; while this license is broad, the privacy policy would prevent some of the more egregious abuses, though its concerning, nonetheless.

I'm glad you've pointed out this little provision, and hopefully Google will explain itself.

Permalink to Comment

4. billb on September 3, 2008 11:44 AM writes...

Have a Gmail or Google Reader account? The same clause has been in their terms of service for years (section 11.1):

https://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en

Permalink to Comment

5. billb on September 3, 2008 4:31 PM writes...

BTW, just stumbled on this:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chrome-license-agreement/

Permalink to Comment

6. Saint Germain on September 3, 2008 4:36 PM writes...

I like google chrome, its very fast, but i will keep my firefox ;-)

Permalink to Comment

7. Patrick Steil (ChurchBuzz) on May 19, 2011 2:57 PM writes...

Yes, but this link:

http://mail.google.com/mail/help/legal_notices.html

Says:

Google does not claim any ownership in any of the content, including any text, data, information, images, photographs, music, sound, video, or other material, that you upload, transmit or store in your Gmail account. We will not use any of your content for any purpose except to provide you with the Service.

This more clearly states they are not going to use your email for anything further than providing you email services... hmm...

Patrick

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Is There an Independent "Right of Performance"?
Did the Director-General of WIPO Steal Employee DNA Samples?
More Evidence People Don't Learn from the Past
Phoenix (music) Supports Free Use
Robo-Papers "Flooding" Academic Conferences
Apple Appeals
Who's Taking All That Money?
Pointing the Troll Finger in the Correct Direction