Photography on Google+

[Malx]

I've been using Google+ for a while now and now that the initial "G+ will kill Facebook" talk has died down it appears to have been adopted as the greatest thing to share photos on by alot of the pros on the web. Scott kelby seems to be using it to display his blog as well as a lot of streamed videos with other togs and the Google+ Photo dev team.
By all accounts it seems like it's being favoured over Flickr.

I'm following a few names in photography and they do lots of online tutorials which is great for me.

Anyone else discovered this new Photography hangout?

[Chebs]

I take it they didn't read the Terms of Service, then?

Greedy Google said:

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.

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

[Skaffen]

Chebs said:

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

They do at least say:

Google Overlords said:

This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services

To give them the benefit of the doubt I think the license is primarily intended to cover them having different interfaces into Google+ (e.g. mobile interface, etc). The same TOS applies to google mail.

Having said that, I don't have a huge amount of trust in Google these days (of late their awful handling of the pseudonym issue hasn't inspired confidence), so I'm always hesitant to upload a photo to Google. I also don't use google mail . But I don't think they'd risk negative PR of using someone's photos - there's nothing in it for them to do so.

[Malx]

Hadn't read the TOS if honest but I don't have photos to sell. With G+ I am more interested in the "pros" giving advice and joiing the hangouts rather than promoting myself.
There is talk though that Google may be starting a stock photo sales feature to compete with Getty. I believe Getty via Flickr take 80% of sale revenue and give back 20% to the creator.

[Tuna]

Surely no professional photographer puts a high resolution image on any public site, unless it has a clear watermark, or they're happy giving it away free?

Putting a lower resolution image only gives them rights to that low resolution copy. I would have thought if Google chose to promote their service using such a photo that the value of the original might increase and the reputation of the photographer might benefit as well?

I really quite like the album view on Google+ It's clean and uncluttered, and the tile function is quite cute.

[AndWhyNot]

I think people are missing the point again. Google (read: any social network) has no big interest in creative works, with the possible exception of an artist being discovered via that network.

The real value is the minute documentation of people's lives. It's been happening for a while that as soon as a news story breaks, agencies and press head to social networks from where they can licence images of those involved, unknown guys and gals who would otherwise be faceless. The submariner who shot his CO and the nurse at the centre of the saline-tampering allegations are two recent cases where the first images on the scene were credited to facebook. I'm sure they don't give them away either.

And if it isn't enough to cover notoriety, there's the making of celebrity too. Today's facebookers are tomorrow's pop stars, business leaders, politicians, journalists, racing drivers etc - that license you grant is irrevocable for good reason; the value of your albums can only go up.

Malx said:

I believe Getty via Flickr take 80% of sale revenue and give back 20% to the creator.

True - and the 20% is taxable

[MartinP]

I find Google+ a very good way to keep an eye on a lot of successful photographers' blogs. I've got a circle with a selection of them in, so very easy to filter the stream to just view those. It's certainly a good resource for inspiration and tips (I never considered following togs on Facebook as you can't filter them from your friends posts and it becomes a bit of a mess).