| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Google Docs
Jon L Hendricks, Photographer
 |
Hobart | IN | USA | Posted: 6:10 PM on 01.21.10 |
| ->> Anyone using Google Docs to store their photos yet? Relatively cheap and simple storage....200 GB at $50 per year! I've already uploaded a raw .dng file to my free storage and it works fine. http://www.google.com/google-d-s/intl/en/tour1.html |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 10:43 AM on 01.22.10 |
| ->> interesting and cheap. Heck 1TB is only 256 dollars a year , 2TB is just over 500 dollars a year. |
|
Jonathan Castner, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 11:02 AM on 01.22.10 |
| ->> Or you could buy two 1TB hard drives for less than $200 and have your own mirrored archive. Sorry but online archiving doesn't make monetary or ease of access sense to me. |
|
Jon L Hendricks, Photographer
|
Hobart | IN | USA | Posted: 12:16 PM on 01.22.10 |
->> Jonathan,
And what if your archive burns to the ground? Or you are robbed? Or if there's a natural disaster to your place? Or what if you are on the road and need access to your pictures? |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 1:29 PM on 01.22.10 |
->> Upload your images to Google Docs gives Google the rights to your work:
http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en
11. Content licence 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 licence 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 licence 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 licence 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 licence 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 licence. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:30 PM on 01.22.10 |
->> Jon,
What-ifs and should-could having, aka risk, is part of the biz. Always has been, always will be. There are risks associated with storing your files with a third party.
What if their server farm slides off into the ocean or swallowed by a huge sink hole due aftershocks or a major quake? What if their server is hacked (robbed) or, a more likely scenerio, google decides to change their terms of service making your archive available to entire world to view/use/download at no charge?
What if the login/pw info to your online archive is secured by a hacker or deleted by your 16 year-old daughter in a fit of anger and revenge because you refuse to let her attend her prom with the 21 year-old college boy she's been seeing for six months you did know about? A disgruntled employee (that never happens) acts in a manner that results in financial or physical loss.
This list go on and on for either side of the argument for or against online archiving.
While storing images with an online archive may minimize certain risks, they also create other risks that may be hidden or greater than one may perceive (or may believe important). While I see the benefit of using an online archive, I perceive, a greater exposure to damage/loss/unauthorized use/access and like Mr. Castner, at a higher cost to 'feel safe'. For me it boils down to a matter of trust and the fact that using an online archive like google or any of the hundreds that are popping up is like having to my hands in my cookie jar. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 1:34 PM on 01.22.10 |
| ->> Too funny, my next step was to look for the TOS excerpts that Mr. Finch posted a minute before my post. Thank you Landon for saving me a step! ....LOL.... As the new saying goes, if it seems too good to be true online, read the TOS. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 2:41 PM on 01.22.10 |
->> "...what if your archive burns to the ground?"
Be paranoid. I have three copies of everything. A hard drive and a set of DVDs at the office and another set of DVDs off site.
I still worry. |
|
Jonathan Castner, Photographer
|
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 5:27 PM on 01.22.10 |
| ->> Jim: correct. My mirror drives are situated so that one is in my office and the other is a different location away from my home so that if something like a disaster or robbery happens one copy will be safe. |
|
Jon L Hendricks, Photographer
|
Hobart | IN | USA | Posted: 6:03 PM on 01.22.10 |
->> Many times rock-solid archiving including off-site storage is what sets apart professionals years down the road. If you lose all your images through your life you will have nothing at the end of your career to show for it. Google Docs is not in itself rock solid but as a third online archive for me (yes, third including Photoshelter and SmugMug) it would suffice to say my images will have one heck of a chance to be around for a long time. I think about diversification all the time. And Photoshelter would be the only company charging significantly compared to the other two. I love Photoshelter and think they'd be fine by themselves but a few bucks here and there help to make things a lot more reliable.
Considering Google's TOS I don't think I want to be putting images there. However, TOS's can be changed with enough input from the users.
For those of you you haven't read the DAM book, please find a used copy and read it now. |
|
Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:52 AM on 01.23.10 |
| ->> Whoops! This "having to my hands in my cookie jar." was suppose to say this, "having too many hands in my cookie jar." Sorry for the confusion. Got distracted as I was finishing up the post. |
|
Howard Curtis Smith, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Easton | PA | USA | Posted: 1:56 PM on 01.24.10 |
->> I don't store my archives off site, but to help mitigate the chance of fire, flood, or building collapse, I recently started to use hard drives by ioSafe. They cost almost twice as much as a bare drive of the same capacity, but they are rated for 2.5 tons of crushing force, submersion in water (30 feet for 30 days), and fire (1550 degrees for a half hour). Unfortunately it is a single drive and not a mirrored RAID since most drive failure does not involve fire, flood, or building collapse. They do have a data recovery plan that runs from one to five years in case of drive failure.
http://www.iosafe.com/
http://www.buy.com/retail/usersearchresults.asp?querytype=home&qu=ioSafe&qx...
I stopped using DVDs for archiving. It became too much of a hassle burning DVDs all the time, and the amount of room they take up was becoming a problem. You can't buy cheap DVDs and expect them to last. I found that out the hard way as I had a finger print permanently etch its way into one making it unreadable.
Every few years, I take my old (and small) hard drives and put the data on new larger drives. This increases the redundancy, makes the archives easier to search, helps prevent the chance of loosing images due to the drives freezing up from lack of use, and helps to mitigate the problem of outdated connectors on older drives. These drives then go into a media safe fire safe. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 4:10 PM on 01.24.10 |
->> I keep wondering why people don't use Amazon's S3 instead of putting a square peg in a round hole with something like google docs?
It's basically the data storage most large services use, you can set it up to be web accessible, you have redundancy, it costs less than backing up yourself, etc...
On the topic of Google's TOS, they're not going to change it. The issue is that for them to show you your own images from any computer in the world they have to publish your images to you, worldwide. It's been discussed at length here and elsewhere. |
|
Matthew Sauk, Photographer
|
Sandy | UT | United States | Posted: 6:36 PM on 01.24.10 |
->> israel,
Lets say I had 400GB to backup, how much would it cost to use amazon? |
|
Colin Lenton, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | United States | Posted: 6:46 PM on 01.24.10 |
->> Matthew,
It would run you about $60/month |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 8:09 PM on 01.24.10 |
| ->> and zenfolio is $100/year unlimited |
|
Landon Finch, Photographer
|
Colorado Springs | CO | USA | Posted: 5:45 PM on 01.25.10 |
->> Israel,
I think this part of the TOS goes beyond publishing my images to me: "to...promote the Services" and the only way to say definitively would be to have a judge make the call. I'd rather not go there; in fact I couldn't afford to go there against Google. |
|
Jon L Hendricks, Photographer
|
Hobart | IN | USA | Posted: 4:23 PM on 01.28.10 |
| ->> At $60 a month you could have almost 3 TB of storage on Google Docs. And after re-reading their TOS I wouldn't believe that they have the rights to go distributing your images all over the place where they could be used editorially, commercially or any any other profitable use. |
|
Colin Lenton, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | United States | Posted: 8:10 PM on 01.28.10 |
->> Jon, how do you get that calucation ?
The rates I found were $.15/G per month ? |
|
Colin Lenton, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | United States | Posted: 8:11 PM on 01.28.10 |
| ->> Jon, please disregard my last message - I thought you were talking about Amazon S3. I agree that Google Docs is much much cheaper |
|
Darren Whitley, Photographer
|
Northwest Missouri | MO | USA | Posted: 8:47 PM on 01.28.10 |
->> Take a look at Carbonite. It uses your unused bandwidth to move your archives to back up your data to an online archive.
http://www.carbonite.com/ |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|