Google’s Chrome terms of use amended September 5th, 2008
Elliott Bledsoe has posted his thoughts about the Chrome terms of use debate (my thoughts are here) on his blog. He points out that the language in clause 11 is pretty standard practice for many services. He refers specifically to MySpace and to Facebook (which has a far more onerous license provision). I agree that this sort of this is standard practice but this is the first time I have seen terms like this in a browser terms of use. That is one of the aspects of this that is odd to me.
He also pointed out that the debate over the content license is now academic. Google announced a change in its Chrome terms of use yesterday. Google already includes a content license pretty much like the now “old” clause 11 in the Chrome terms of use in the universal Google Terms of Service (which makes more sense in that context and probably addresses my concerns about the “display” requirement). Mike Yang, Google’s Senior Product Counsel, posted the following:
So for Google Chrome, only the first sentence of Section 11 should have applied. We’re sorry we overlooked this, but we’ve fixed it now, and you can read the updated Google Chrome terms of service. If you’re into the fine print, here’s the revised text of Section 11:
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.And that’s all. Period. End of section.
It will take a little time to propagate this change through the 40+ languages in which Google Chrome is available, and to remove the language in the download versions. But rest assured that we’re working quickly to fix this. The new terms will of course be retroactive, and will cover everyone who has downloaded Google Chrome since it was launched.
The new clause 11 is not really necessary to recognise the rights you may already hold in your content. Your rights under copyright law exist independently of the clause but it does serve to reassure anyone who may be concerned that Google is trying to usurp their rights through Chrome’s use. That being said, because Chrome interfaces with Google’s services (or is intended to) it is a good idea to take a look at Google’s other terms of use that govern those services (like the Terms of Service I linked to above and its Privacy Policy) if you use them, whether through Chrome or otherwise.
As an aside, as a lawyer I appreciate the trend on services like Google and Facebook towards making the legal stuff intelligible to non-legal people. The language of the terms on these services are still obviously legal documents but they are written in plain English. It is still something of a challenge to draft complex terms in plain English but the rewards are worth the effort. For one thing the more complex the terminology and jargon the less chance you have of actually being able to enforce the terms on a person who doesn’t have 5 years of legal training and a background in Latin. This is unfortunately a point that is lost on most South African lawyers who still can’t seem to get their heads around writing letters in plain English, let alone agreements and terms and conditions … /rant.
Technorati Tags:
chrome, content licensing, copyright, google, terms and conditions, terms of use, eula
Posted in Intellectual Property, Legal stuff, Mindsets, Web/Tech | Comments (Comments)
Add New Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment
Trackbacks
(Trackback URL)