UTTERMEDIA

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.

The key term here is “non-exclusive”. Google are not taking ownership of your photo, neither are they revoking your rights to your own work. Whilst they can do all of the above (reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute) with your photo(s), you can still do the same too.

Notice also “on or through, the Services”. Google aren’t going to send your photos off to some third-party website for public distribution or use. They may however use your photo as a part of their services – services that they currently offer. Eg: your image may appear in Google marketing material, or perhaps something as ridiculous as a Gmail background image. The issue here is that your image is then facing a much wider audience than you originally intended (depending on your prevalence as a photographer). We all know that people pinch photos if they like the look of them, it’s very easy. So this, as before, is likely to happen in this situation, just on a much larger scale. It’s down to you whether you are comfortable with that or not. 

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.

Probably the scariest part of the terms. It does sound like Google will share you photos with other companies. However, ‘syndicated services’ again mean that these companies will be part of Google’s current service remit. At present, Google are not in the practice of distributing images commercially for profit or fund. If they do choose to do this in future, these terms will change and you, by law, will have to be notified (much like when your iPhone pops up a new set of iTunes T’s & C’s). If Google used your photo(s), it would only ever be in connection with services associated with Google, such as Maps, Google+, Android, etc.

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.

Google may resize your image, slap an ugly logo on it, or perhaps reduce the quality. No biggie, but again you may feel differently about this.

To summarise, these terms at first seem a little unnerving. But it is no better or worse than your images appearing in Google Image Search results, which, let’s face it, they probably already do, if you have a website or a Flickr account. The only difference is, Google may hand pick some of your photos from your G+ for their own use, as Google.

If you are a professional photographer you may feel that the above terms will detract exclusivity from your work, which is understandable. Perhaps slap a watermark over any content that you upload to your G+ account, or just provide lo-res/compressed versions. Either way, you won’t find yourself losing money or being exploited by Google, as their practices here are no different than Flickr, Picasa or DeviantArt. The only point to take away from this is that Google have the power to spread your image far and wide, under their own name, in a way that other online services do not.

A brief look at some of the disregarded moments at the December 2010 student protests. Click images for larger versions.

A policeman with a first aid logo on his baton.

A student trying to burn some concrete blocks.

A photographer with a ridiculous moustache. 

Imagine image 1 to be taken from a 5.7MP camera and image 2 a 12.8MP camera. Olympus or Sony will have you believe that camera 2 is twice (2.25x, to be specific) as good as camera 1, and that the images are twice as good. Because it produces images with twice as many megapixels.

They are right, camera 2 produces twice as many megapixels. But look at the image above. The extra 7.1 megapixels that camera 2 boasts are used to expand the image wide as well as tall. So with twice as many megapixels you are not getting detail and quality 2.25x better than camera 1. If you look at the measurements of the photo from camera 2, it’s only .5x bigger than those of camera 1.

Don’t be a mug, don’t go out and buy a 10MP camera because you think it’s “twice as good” as a 5MP model. The amount of people that boast their megapixels over lesser predecessors is comedic. A camera twice as good as camera one would need to be 22.8MP.

This one’s for free.

Benny’s got a new toy. What you are looking at above is an original 1957 Swedish hand built medium-format camera. A real modular and valuable piece of vintage history.

Compared to my current weapon of choice, a 2007 Canon EOS 30D, they couldn’t be more different from one-another. The entire thing is manual, with more focus and adjustment rings than screws. The craftsmanship is just incredible - it feels and practically looks brand new. You just don’t find quality and detail like this in today’s plasticky mass-produced technology.

It has taken me a good hour or so to find my way around it but luckily I’ve located an instruction manual online, which is adorably written in Queen’s English. I’m holidaying down in Cornwall and then up in the Lake District in August and September this year, which couldn’t be more perfect proving grounds for it. Looking forward to loading it up with film and patiently awaiting the results. This is by far the finest thing I will ever own.