Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Google+ Anyone here using it?
Shaun Ward, Photographer
Perth | Tayside | Scotland | Posted: 4:39 AM on 07.03.11
->> Just started using Google+ and wondered what others thought of it.
Obviously this invite system they have is limiting trying it out fully but if you are using what are your initial thoughts.
Personally I like the circles idea where you can quickly choose who you share what with and the image display is quite nice.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Greg Kendall-Ball, Photographer, Assistant
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 11:30 AM on 07.03.11
->> Shaun-
I've been on it for a couple of days. I think it's still early, and obviously, the lack of a critical mass of users makes it less appealing than Facebook is currently.
However, the tight integration with other Google services, the ease with which "Circles" can be set up and maintained, mean I'll be sticking around for a while. It feels like Google is doing this right....I haven't seen any downtime issues, and they haven't tried to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, into their early release. I look forward to when there are more than 17 of my friends signed into it, and to what additional features Google will roll out.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Shaun Ward, Photographer
Perth | Tayside | Scotland | Posted: 8:40 AM on 07.05.11
->> Thanks Greg.
Yeah Google is making it a bit redundant at the moment with the restrictions they are placing on people joining.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Thomas Derr, Photographer
Madison | WI | US | Posted: 10:28 AM on 07.05.11
->> fyi, Google Invites just opened up
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Greg Kendall-Ball, Photographer, Assistant
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 11:29 PM on 07.06.11
->> +1 for the G+ invites. I just got the option to add invites today.

You can find me at
http://gplus.to/gregkb
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steve Violette, Photographer
Gulf Breeze | FL | USA | Posted: 2:12 PM on 07.07.11
->> Thanks shaun,
Yeah Google is making it a bit redundant at the moment with the restrictions they are placing on people joining.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Tod Gomes, Photographer
Pleasant Hill | CA | USA | Posted: 2:15 PM on 07.07.11
->> Beware before you sign up with this service! (or any online photo sharing service for that matter).

http://photofocus.com/2011/07/06/google-plus-read-the-fine-print-before-you.../
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 7:36 PM on 07.07.11
->> I'm on it: myfirstname.mylastname@gmail.com

The invite system keeps opening and closing.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rod Oracheski, Photographer, Photo Editor
Wainwright | AB | Canada | Posted: 8:04 PM on 07.07.11
->> I like it, though understandably the 'content' is a little sparse. I suspect they started speeding up invites after Facebook's announcement of new features, so that should help.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kent Nishimura, Student/Intern, Photographer
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 8:20 PM on 07.07.11
->> http://gplus.to/kentnish
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michelle Hedstrom, Photographer
Arvada | CO | US | Posted: 11:48 PM on 07.07.11
->> I've been finding some interesting things about it. The circle concept is kind of neat actually, and I've seen some cool uses for it besides its intended use (create a circle with just you in it, and share whatever you want to read for later with that circle).

Tod, apparently there's a clause underneath that one that says you actually own your copyright, and that paragraph is necessary for G+ to actually show your photos. I don't have the exact wording in front of me, but seen that mentioned in several places.

I'm on it by just my name
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brian Dowling, Photographer
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 12:12 AM on 07.08.11
->> Has anyone read the terms? This is a little sketchy to say the least...

"“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.”

“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.”

“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.”
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michelle Hedstrom, Photographer
Arvada | CO | US | Posted: 12:26 AM on 07.08.11
->> 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.

See
http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS and read all of section 11
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jabin Botsford, Student/Intern, Photographer
Bowling Green | KY | United States | Posted: 2:04 AM on 07.08.11
->> I like most of the features and how they have kept it fairly simple. When I first started I had some trouble navigating but it has gotten better. I have a feeling facebook will just steal all of the best parts and google + will flop like google buzz did. Facebook just has to strong of a following.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jesse Jones, Photo Editor, Photographer
Gainesville | Fl | USA | Posted: 9:55 AM on 07.08.11
->> I am trying it out as well... haven't done much with it yet but I am at www.gplus.to/fotojesse
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chris Hunt, Photographer
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 1:28 PM on 07.08.11
->> http://gplus.to/chrishunt
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 1:35 PM on 07.08.11
->> Brian-
Without those terms, they wouldn't have the right to display the content you upload to your account. I do wish they'd be more clear on that though...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chris Mackler, Photographer
Cape Girardeau | MO | United States | Posted: 2:06 PM on 07.08.11
->> Via the Washington Post: Google+ may carry dangers for photographers

http://wapo.st/pp6LQ1
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Otto Kitsinger, Photographer
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 3:27 PM on 07.08.11
->> Michelle and Israel are right on it, but evidently the blogger on the Post didn't read it either. Some relevant lines that were missing from their quotes of section 11:

You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in 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.

And, from section 13:

13.1 The Terms will continue to apply until terminated by either you or Google as set out below.

13.2 If you want to terminate your legal agreement with Google, you may do so by (a) notifying Google at any time and (b) closing your accounts for all of the Services which you use, where Google has made this option available to you. Your notice should be sent, in writing, to Google’s address which is set out at the beginning of these Terms.

So it's of course your copyright, they only require the rights to make the service work (only the word "promote" should raise any flags and really, will they make a successful service if they rip anyone off? word travels fast, you know) and if you close your account, then their rights end.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chris Hunt, Photographer
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 3:29 PM on 07.08.11
->> Do people here actually upload their photos directly to social networks? Regardless of Google/Facebook/Twitter Terms of Service, that's just bad business practice in general. It's like printing your photo on the cheapest paper at Office Depot and taping it to the side of a city bus with your business card attached. Sure, lots of people will see your photo, write comments on it, circle their faces with a red pen, and point it out to their friends, but eventually the photo will either fall off the side of the bus or someone will steal it.

Instead, get yourself a website (PhotoShelter/SmugMug) and upload your stuff there. When you feel like sharing/promoting, post a link to the image instead. Your photo will be presented the way you intended, you'll keep the copyright, you'll give the viewer a chance to purchase, and you'll have a lasting archive of all your images. To entice the user to click, add a very small thumbnail.

If you're snapping a blurry photo of your friend's dog eating pizza off your little sister's plate and decide that the image won't generate much revenue or benefit your brand... then a direct upload is probably OK.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Daniel Malmberg, Photographer
Huskvarna | Sweden | Sweden | Posted: 2:19 PM on 07.11.11
->> I am also on Google+.
My profile is found here:
http://gplus.to/sportskjutaren

If any fellow SS_member want an invite.
Feel free to go to my profile, send an email together with a link to your SS-profile (just to confirm your membership here).

Just created a circle for SS-members.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 3:23 PM on 07.11.11
->> "...that's just bad business practice in general."

I agree with you, Chris. This and the TOS is discussed as well in this SS thread:
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=38529

Otto:
Yes, according to the TOS, the photographer does in retain the rights to any image uploaded to Google's server however, the terms of the TOS gives them the right to copy and publish the image in this section here:

"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."

Nowhere does it state that the reproduction, display or published image is limited to its website.

Furthermore, they may receive compensation - license the image for use - without distributing any compensation to the copyright holder which is clearly state here:

"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."

In neither clause does, do the TOS state that the copyright holder 1) must grant permission for use and 2) compensated or commissions for the usage will be distributed to the photographer. If The Associate Press or TMZ partner with G+ they will have access and the ability to use your content, which includes not only photos and videos, but any text you include, without further permission or compensation to you or anyone who uses their service.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Otto Kitsinger, Photographer
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 2:03 AM on 07.12.11
->> We read this differently, and it sure would be nice if this stuff was in plainer English. While I don't have any photos on Google+ at this point - I'm just checking it out right now - but if I do choose to add it to "real" use, I take comfort in phrases like this:

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

Yes, the "promote"part might be iffy, but really, they're not that stupid. With no model releases, no property releases, and a desire to keep customers and build goodwill - after all, they're selling our being there - I can't imagine them ever taking a 600 pixel wide watermarked image and doing something commercial with it. The intent of their perhaps convoluted language is not to hide their secret image theft plans.

Chris - I agree the best usage of social media sites for our kind of business is to drive traffic (and sales) onto our own sites or services. For some, uploading thumbnails only works; for others, a handful of "full" (web) size images with links to a larger gallery on our own sites. I certainly would not use such a place for full galleries or important presentation. But for some kinds of images, that's where the customers are.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Francis Specker, Photographer
Riverside | CA | USA | Posted: 3:20 AM on 07.12.11
->> I'm on Google+ http://gplus.to/specker

Nice feature that is unique to G+ is the "hangout" feature. You can have up to 10 people doing a round table-like video chat.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Cooper Neill, Student/Intern, Photographer
Andernach | EU | Germany | Posted: 8:31 AM on 07.12.11
->> I just signed up as well, it will be interesting to see how/if this will take off and compete with facebook.

gplus.to/CooperNeill
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:31 AM on 07.12.11
->> ..."I take comfort in phrases like this:

"This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services (snip)"..."

If that was indeed their sole purpose, then this clause would not be necessary within the TOS: "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." Without this agreement - aka which is the rights grab' - Googs can not distribute any image placed on their server to a third party.

Your comfort is an illusion. In contract law, Otto, you can't interpret snippets, partial sentences, or a word or two. One has review the entire clause or statement to determine the exposure or intent.
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Seale, Photographer
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 11:57 AM on 07.12.11
->> Well said Clark. Tread carefully here folks.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Sid Hastings, Photo Editor, Photographer
St. Louis | MO | United States | Posted: 4:20 PM on 07.12.11
->> Let's be careful out there, folks. Nearly all the big social media sites, be they Facebook or TwitPic or Google+, include very aggressive rights claims in their ToS documents. Terms, that at least for me, require working photographs to be very careful about posting their work to those sites.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Otto Kitsinger, Photographer
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 4:26 PM on 07.12.11
->> Clark - you say you can't interpret partial sentences, but in the sentence you quote, it says twice "provision of syndicated services". That entire line, combined with other lines near it, says to me that if they're using third parties to provide some of the services (if for example they used AWS as a data store - not that particular example is likely) then the rights required for providing the service extend to those third parties.

The TOS is not written well for public reading. It's overly broad in the language used. They need to fix it. But I read the entire TOS, and I don't feel the intent is even remotely for them to try to steal content and resell it. That would be pocket change that would risk pushing everyone away from the service, and that would cost them a fortune in both lost users and lawsuits. They're not stupid.

I don't even feel the exposure suggests it's possible. You can make a claim that yes, the overly broad language in the TOS might conceivably expose images to use you don't intend. But is that reality? First, I'd never post images of more than say 400 or 600 pixels on the largest side, wtih a watermark. What are they or anybody else in a large corporation going to do with that? Plaster that on a bus? Hasn't every large corporation that has tried something dumb like using a full-res Flickr CC image (a dumb idea right there to post such an image) in an ad then paid a hefty price in court because they didn't have a model release? Yes, the photographer who posted an image as CC in those cases didn't get anything, but the point is big companies know better, when there are so many easy, inexpensive licensed image options; and when now and then an intern (seems like it's always an intern's fault) does something stupid, it always gets expensive for them.

End users are far more likely to steal stuff, but they're harder to catch, don't have deep pockets, are rarely using the image for profit, and chasing them is almost always economically unfeasable. Many people don't understand anything about copyright or usage or what "fair use" actually means beyond something they think covers anything they'd do with it. They link to an image on Facebook or use it as wallpaper on their monitor and that is the extent of their thinking. If they can't do that, they'll just move on.

Robert is right - tread carefully. And of course, keep your own counsel (and that of your attorney). But in my thinking, a 400 to 600 pixel watermarked JPG is as dangerous (or not dangerous) on your own site or own blog as it is on any social media service. A 1200 pixel wide unwatermarked image (you see those on certain portfolio sites quite often) is dangerous everywhere. Everyone needs to find their own balance between image display and safety, marketing, ways to connect with customers, etc; no two situations are alike. For me, for customer-oriented images (not talking about corporate or advertising work, etc), I subscribe to a theory I've heard discussed a lot recently in writer's circles - the danger is not piracy, but obscurity. I also subscribe to watermarking anything not paid for and keeping these advertising images small. But if one's particular potential customers are all on Google+ or Facebook or whatever, then that's where one should "run an ad" by using the service, and if there are any problems from this, the service provider reselling our stuff and laughing at us on their way to the bank with our money won't be it.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kurt Rivers, Photographer
Ormond Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 4:35 PM on 07.12.11
->> I don't understand why people would upload images on social media sites that they want protected.

http://gplus.to/KurtRivers
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Denny Kyser, Photographer
Russell | Pa. | United States of America | Posted: 5:12 PM on 07.12.11
->> I am on google+ but will be careful about what images I upload. Maybe keep the photos on the fun & lighter side and not the images I am selling.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Welker, Photographer, Student/Intern
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 5:33 PM on 07.12.11
->> I just hopped on as well. I figure, any new technology deserves it's work through to decide if it is worth the time investment.

gplus.to/dwelker
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dave Einsel, Photographer, Photo Editor
Houston | TX | United States | Posted: 6:23 PM on 07.12.11
->> Virtually all of the social media/sharing sites have some degree of rights grabbing TOS. The only one I have seen that does not (there might be others) is mobypicture.

From their TOS, "All rights of uploaded content by our users remain the property of our users and those rights can in no means be sold or used in a commercial way by Mobypicture or affiliated third party partners without consent from the user."

I in the camp with, "If you are worried about infringement don't post pictures." It can't be any simpler than that.

I am on G+ but don't know how or if I will use it. Frankly, I am not really interested in yet another place to suck the precious time I have left on this planet away from me.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 7:19 PM on 07.12.11
->> Otto wrote: "The TOS is not written well for public reading."

The ToS is actually written quite well and very succinct. And as you noted, broad and intentionally so. In fact, the rights grab is unprecedented in my opinion (see below).


Otto wrote: "I don't feel the intent is even remotely for them to try to steal content and resell it."

It won't be stealing, Otto. Any one who uses their service gives them right to sell or give (aka distribute) content to others for use, which is clear stated in section 11.1. They are relying on people like yourself who perceive the ToS as nothing important to worry about.

Do a little research on the Eliot Spitzer scandal and look where the first photos of Ashley Dupré came from. Contact the rights holders and see how much they made from their images.

Interesting enough in this discussion I missed one very important word in that clause that is new and ominous; the word "through". This one word makes Google's ToS, what I would have to say is the most far-reaching, unprecedented right grab to date.

I fully intended to use Google+, not to post photos, but to post links back to photos and content on my server thereby avoiding the right grab. However, I'm going to steer far away from it.

The problem with the word "through" is it means that if I post a link on G+ back to my site, the content on my servers, through the language of the ToS is treated the same as if it was directly uploaded to their site. As Mr. Hastings said, "Let's be careful...". In fact, I'm not going to have to review Facebook's and MySpace ToS to see if it contains similar language.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Matthew Sauk, Photographer
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 9:11 PM on 07.12.11
->> I have moved away from facebook to google+. Much cleaner and easier to deal with compared to facebook.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Otto Kitsinger, Photographer
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 12:27 AM on 07.13.11
->> Best I can tell from memory backed up by current web searches, the Ashley Dupré photos first were stolen from Myspace, whose terms of service didn't allow Myspace (or anyone else) to do such a thing. I found talk of a copyright violation lawsuit to challenge the AP's Fair Use claims, but couldn't find a conclusion to this. The source of the images, then, was immaterial - they could have been stolen off her own personal site as easily.

Facebook's TOS was proposed to be way worse, briefly, and customers yelled at them and they backed off. Your own site is on Blogspot, which is owned by Google, and the Blogspot/Blogger TOS is more clearly worded and better for us users, but you are still granting them license in a sentence that is virtually identical to the G+ sentence. I agree it would be nice if they'd overall use the Blogger TOS language on the Google+ TOS.

I welcome any links to news reports of any instances of use under such terms that are not related to operating the service by Google, Facebook, Myspace, Flickr, or any other service with similar license grant TOS. I track a lot of intellectual property and copyright law news, but I admit I still could have missed such news if it came and went quickly.

Without ever once having heard of such a case, for now I'll maintain that 400-600 pixel images with watermarks are the same amount of danger either on your own site or a social service. The example you mention would have had the the AP taking the images from wherever they found them, since they claimed fair use.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Curtis Clegg, Photographer
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 6:45 PM on 07.13.11
->> Here is one other small concern I have, from Douglas Edwards, Google Employee #59, talking about why he things Google created Google+

----------
My sense of it is, it’s not because they enjoy warm and fuzzy social interaction and they think oh, this would be a really wonderful way to bring our friends together and build a social circle. They look at it and say, "the information created in social networks is extremely important and valuable."

http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011/07/12/google-employee-no-59-on-google-p...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Daniel Malmberg, Photographer
Huskvarna | Sweden | Sweden | Posted: 3:02 PM on 07.18.11
->> Getty's Lawyers Look Over Google+ Terms of Service

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/getty_images_says_google_plus_terms_of...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Robert Caplin, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 3:18 PM on 07.18.11
->> It'll be interesting to see how the TOS issue works itself out or not, but I think G+ is great...I'm already checking it more than Facebook.

In the meantime, I'll just post links to photos vs uploading photos to Google+.

http://gplus.to/RobertCaplin
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chelsea Sektnan, Photographer
San Clemente | CA | USA | Posted: 4:58 PM on 07.18.11
->> I have it as well, but I'm not sure how to use it exactly. I'm assuming the technology and the theories will become more relevant the more people start to use it. For now I'm not really making judgement about it... just using it as another social media tool.

chelseasektnan@gmail.com
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Otto Kitsinger, Photographer
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 5:50 PM on 07.18.11
->> Daniel - thanks for that link.

Chelsea - not sure anybody knows how to use it exactly, yet. Too new, not populated enough yet. But I think it shows a lot of promise.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 8:18 AM on 07.20.11
->> if you are using Google Plus...
VERY IMPORTANT!! Artists and photographers. Make sure you set your privacy settings to keep people from ordering prints of your images or downloading images.
1. Click on Photos at the very top in the black nav bar.
2. Little Gear in far right very top corner is settings link for whichever aspect of G+ you are in.
3. Photo Settings > Privacy & Permissions
4. Unclick Order Prints and Download my Photos
5. Save Changes
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kent Nishimura, Student/Intern, Photographer
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 9:11 AM on 07.20.11
->> @Debra, can't seem to find the check box for the settings you mention...

but! i will keep looking.

i might've missed it, it is 3am here in Hawaii...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Cooper Neill, Student/Intern, Photographer
Andernach | EU | Germany | Posted: 9:30 AM on 07.20.11
->> Kent - Make sure you click the photos button at the very top of the screen in the black navigation bar which will take you to your Picasa site where the Google+ images are hosted and not the photo icon or profile page. From there follow the rest of Debra's instructions through the Picasa site and all will once again be right with the world.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Joe Morahan, Photographer
Denver | CO | | Posted: 10:53 AM on 07.20.11
->> how do I sign up for Google+? I keep trying, but it says they are not allowing new people....how are you all signing up for this? Do you need an invite? If so anyone wanna send me one?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Joe Morahan, Photographer
Denver | CO | | Posted: 11:19 AM on 07.20.11
->> thanks Bob!!!!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kent Nishimura, Student/Intern, Photographer
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 8:28 AM on 07.22.11
->> @cooper - mahalo! :)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Byron Hetzler, Photographer
Granby | CO | USA | Posted: 9:54 AM on 07.22.11
->> Anyone with a spare invite? I would be grateful! E-mail me through my member page. Thanks!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mike Huffstatler, Photographer, Assistant
Rancho Cucamonga | Ca | United States | Posted: 12:26 PM on 07.22.11
->> Dumb question time; I just established my G+ account. Still know essentially nothing about how it all works but I think it's important enough to get ahead of the curve.

Here's the dumb question...where do I either set or see what my profile link is? Everyone above has shown their qplus.toc/xxxxx Where do I get that?

I also think this thread may be close to 50 posts so please send me an email if you have a minute.

Thanks
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kurt Rivers, Photographer
Ormond Beach | FL | USA | Posted: 1:06 PM on 07.22.11
->> Have you tried http://gplus.to/ ? I don't know why google doesnt have a system instead of the google+ ID yet.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]



Return to --> Message Board Main Index
Relieve some stress, Poke the bunny ::..