Video sharing sites ToS reviewed

Simon of Tuppenceworth has a great post where he reviews the terms and conditions of video sharing sites (YouTube, and Google Video). Simon works in McGarr Solicitors a well known law firm in dublin.

I haven’t tried Google Video yet but I have tried both and YouTube and I much prefer Google would have to be really good to come close to, in terms of functionality.

However, when considering the ToS, Simon comes down in favour of Google Video – this is what he says for each of the sites:
YouTube –

Take your valued video off YouTube. They can do any damn thing they like with it, for money or any other reason, and you can’t do a thing.

I’d be unworried were it not for two clauses. You do need to grant Blip a right to disseminate the video- otherwise how could anyone see it? But “either electronically or via other media�? What non electronic media does the intend to use? I only want to agree to electronic dissemination. Also what is the definition of a “ affiliated site�? Leaves us with questions.

and finally, Google Video

“non-exclusive� is good. “modify� is concerning, but could be a technical term. Let’s let it slide for the moment. “Reformat� might be read as referring to a video format. Or it might be selling a DVD of Google Greatest Giggles. Otherwise I’d say that it’s not so bad. Particularly read in conjunction with the later clause. You’re taking a risk, of course, but it seems to be a lesser one than in the two examples above.

I must take a look at Google Video in light of that. Thanks Simon.

[EDITED] to correct Simon’s current status

3 thoughts on “Video sharing sites ToS reviewed”

  1. Hello Tom,
    Thanks for the link. I’ve added a few other sites. Solely on a comparison of the TOS, I have a new front runner- and a new worst choice.

Comments are closed.