<story><title>Google &apos;stole my videos&apos;, says film-maker Philip Bloom</title><url>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44228756</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>falcon620</author><text>Bingo.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;static?template=terms&amp;amp;gl=US&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;static?template=terms&amp;amp;gl=US&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;From section 6c:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube&amp;#x27;s (and its successors&amp;#x27; and affiliates&amp;#x27;) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>cwkoss</author><text>If Phillip Bloom uploaded these videos to Youtube, didn&amp;#x27;t he consent to a broad TOS on the usage of these videos for internal company purposes?&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d be surprised if he had a case, which may be why he&amp;#x27;s taking his grievance to the media instead.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>raesene9</author><text>IANAL but I&amp;#x27;m not sure that clause applies to this case.  From the article it wasn&amp;#x27;t a Youtube executive who used the footage but someone from Google&amp;#x27;s research division.&lt;p&gt;Also that clause appears to apply to Youtube using content from the site to promote Youtube&amp;#x27;s service(s) and not for content entirely unrelated to Youtube but to Google&amp;#x27;s wider interests.</text></comment>
<story><title>Google &apos;stole my videos&apos;, says film-maker Philip Bloom</title><url>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44228756</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>falcon620</author><text>Bingo.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;static?template=terms&amp;amp;gl=US&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.youtube.com&amp;#x2F;static?template=terms&amp;amp;gl=US&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;From section 6c:&lt;p&gt;&amp;quot;For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube&amp;#x27;s (and its successors&amp;#x27; and affiliates&amp;#x27;) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>cwkoss</author><text>If Phillip Bloom uploaded these videos to Youtube, didn&amp;#x27;t he consent to a broad TOS on the usage of these videos for internal company purposes?&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;d be surprised if he had a case, which may be why he&amp;#x27;s taking his grievance to the media instead.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>bitL</author><text>If he is a British&amp;#x2F;still EU citizen, this part of &amp;quot;terms&amp;quot; might be worth the value of white noise.</text></comment>