> Most of the rights they want granted are necessary to permit them to > operate their service. The only odd one is about letting Google use > your > content in its advertising. It is overly broad and could be a problem > for > someone selling photography as a business. But a business would not be > using Picassa.
I always interpret legal clauses as broadly as possible, since I know whoever wrote them will do that even more so. > >I'm not sure but I think the Google rules that you refer to pertain > >mainly if you post your pictures as "Public Albums". You can also > make > >your Google album, albums or individual pictures private at the time > of > >uploading and there-after only those you have have sent an > >invitation to that contains the URL key string will be able to view > your > >material. Flikr recently had an issue where albums marked as "private" were available to the public. http://www.thesecuretimes.com/2008/02/private_flickr_photos_made_pub.php Picasa has security issues as well, but then, so does most any software. http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/Picture-theft-through-hole-in-Google- s-Picasa--/news/96554 Technology *will* fail; it's just a matter of when and how spectacularly. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
