Sep 102008
 

My friends Peter and Val stopped by my apartment for brunch this past Saturday. I enjoy having friends over for brunch on the weekends. It’s a great way to start the day: I get up early to straighten up the house and clean; I cook a nice meal with friends; we all enjoy a leisurely meal with nice drinks; and we still have the rest of the day to enjoy.

Peter and Sam
I tend to make and gather an excessive amount of food for brunch. You can see Peter and I sitting before the brunch table. We enjoyed croissants, beignets, and French bread from Almondine, an assortment of jellies and jams, eggs benedict, grapes, melon and prosciutto, raspberries and blackberries, prosecco, bloody marys, coffee, and orange juice.

Eggs Benedict
Eggs Benedict can be a bit difficult to make. The hardest part is trying to make sure everything comes together at the same time, especially when you are preparing the dish for multiple people. I’ve written about making Eggs Benedict before. One item I should note: fresh eggs are very important for this dish. Not only do they taste better, but preparing the poached eggs and Hollandaise sauce is much easier with fresh eggs.

Despite the challenges in preparing Eggs Benedict, it is worth it: this is a luxurious dish. It’s easy to make vegetarian- and kosher-friendly: just swap out the Canadian Bacon for cooked spinach (Eggs Florentine) or salmon. It’s not possible to make this dish vegan-friendly.

Almondine in Brooklyn, NY
Well before my friends arrived at my house, I took a walk down to Almondine in Dumbo. The baker at Almondine is Hervé Poussot, formerly a pastry chef at Le Bernardin. The story of Almondine is that it was opened with Jacques Torres of Jacques Torres Chocolate. (His store is across the street.)

Almondine has the best croissants in Brooklyn if not all of New York City. The breads, pastries, and cakes are also amazing. I have only been to a handful of bakeries that compare to Almondine. If you are in DUMBO, I definitely recommend stopping by there, and if you are not in DUMBO, it’s well worth the trip.

Brunch with friends is always a lot of fun. I’ve made these dishes for other friends as well, and I’m always happy to have people over.

[Thanks Val for sending me photos of Peter and the food!]

 Posted by at 9:12 am
Sep 082008
 

I haven’t seen the spider in my window since the rainstorm this past Saturday. However, I did catch it weaving a web the other day. I think I pushed my camera a bit to the limits; macro mode can be a bit difficult to use.
Araneus diadematus or Cross Orbweaver weaving a web
Araneus diadematus or Cross Orbweaver weaving a web
Here is the final image magnified and over-sharpened:
Araneus diadematus or Cross Orbweaver weaving a web

I also captured some images of the Araneus diadematus (Cross Orbweaver) eating a fly. I’ve decided to just link to the images, as some folks might be a bit squeamish:

 Posted by at 11:07 am
Sep 082008
 

Google has again attempted to clarify its terms of service on its blog. Mike Yang, at Official Google Blog: Making terms of service clearer writes:

To be clear: our terms do not claim ownership of your content — what you create is yours and remains yours. But in lawyer-speak, we need to ask for a “license” (which basically means your permission) to display this content to the wider world when that’s what you intend. 

I don’t believe Google has ever attempted to “claim ownership” of content; my comments have always been about the specific terms of the license. Yang goes on to discuss other license agreements; he includes links to the terms of service for Amazon, Ebay, and Facebook.

Amazon and eBay both claim broad rights to content posted on their services; they do not limit these rights in any substantive manner. With respect to products, this makes sense on a certain level–Amazon and eBay have a vested interest in attempting to sell their users’ products as much as possible. I question why these rights need to be perpetual and irrevocable, but it’s fairly clear to me that if the companies do well, the sellers on Amazon and eBay receive indirect compensation via higher sales. In Amazon’s case, I do not believe it is appropriate that Amazon retains all of the rights to reviews and comments posted by their users; however, I don’t post comments or reviews on Amazon.

Facebook, who has been reviled for their terms of service (see here and here), has a very consumer-friendly clause in their license agreement with respect to user content. While they do initially claim a perpetual, irrevocable license, the terms of service go on to state:

If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content. Facebook does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content. 

Worded another way, Facebook won’t use your content at all if you “remove” it, but they don’t want to be responsible from deleting your content in the form of “archived copies” from their servers.

The solution for Google remains the same: remove the “promote” term, and modify their “irrevocable” and “perpetual” license to allow people to terminate the license unless the user is explicitly warned at the time of submitting their content. If anything, I would like to see Google’s base terms of service provide for a lesser set of rights; additional terms of service for other products could be used to increase these rights rather than limit these rights.

I am disappointed that Yang chose to contrast Google’s terms of service with those of eBay and Amazon: the companies are distinctly different than Google. Google’s comparison with Facebook is a bit more apt, but as I just pointed out, the Facebook license can be terminated by the creator of the content.

I’ve made quite a few posts on this topic, but it’s an important issue to me. First, I feel that people should be aware of what happens to the works they create when they upload them to the Internet. Penalties for copyright infringement for unregistered works in the United State are fairly weak as it is, and once you grant a company or person an perpetual and irrevocable license you have absolutely no way to ask people to stop using your material. Second, I like Google as a company and I enjoy using their services. I would like them to succeed, and I believe that these kinds of problems can hinder Google in the long run. As distinct from some other companies, I believe Google tries to operate in a clear and open manner, and I would like them to continue to do so.

 Posted by at 9:46 am
Sep 042008
 

Mike Yang, Senior Product Counsel at Google, posted the following on the Official Google Blog: Update to Google Chrome's terms of service:

So to show a blog, we ask the user to give us a license to the blog’s content. (The same goes for any other service where users can create content.) But in all these cases, the license is limited to providing the service. In Gmail, for example, the terms specifically disclaim our ownership right to Gmail content. [Emphasis added.]

Unfortunately, he does not explain why the license is perpetual and irrevocable. (It’s not an insurmountable technical issue; the terms for YouTube are neither perpetual nor irrevocable.) And what he states appears to directly contradict the Terms of Service Section 11:

This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services[…] [Emphasis added]

Google is a great company, and I hope they address this issue with their Terms of Service soon. The short term fix would be to remove the phrase “and promote;” they could address the “perpetual” and “irrevocable” portions later.

 Posted by at 3:23 pm
Sep 032008
 

Google received a lot of grief for attempting to apply their standard terms of service to Google Chrome, their new web browser. Google has reacted by modifying the End User License Agreement. Section 11, which used to transfer rights to Google as per the standard Terms of Service, has been modified to read:

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.

Kudos to Google for making the change.

Unfortunately, Google has not addressed the same issue with Picasa Web Albums. Even worse, their new release of the Picasa client, version 3.0, now contains the same poor Terms of Service that the Google Chrome browser used. In short, just by installing the Picasa client on your computer, you give Google rights to your images. It’s too bad–I would love to install and play with the Picasa client, but I would prefer not to grant Google “perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free” rights to my images to “promote” their service.

 Posted by at 5:28 pm
Sep 032008
 

Tugboats on the Hudson River
This past Sunday, August 31, the Working Harbor Committee held the Sixteenth Annual Great North River Tugboat Race & Competition on the Hudson River. My friend Anne and I went to Pier 84 at 44th Street.

All of the tugboats line up at Pier 84 and parade up to the starting line at the 79th Street Boat Basin. Then they race as quickly as they can back down to the finish line at Pier 84.

Here are some photos of the tugs before the race.
Tugboats on the Hudson River Tugboats on the Hudson River Tugboats on the Hudson River Tugboats on the Hudson River Tugboats on the Hudson River Tugboats on the Hudson River Tugboats on the Hudson RiverTugboats on the Hudson River

The crane ship from the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers marks the finish line.
Tugboats on the Hudson River

The tugboats parade up to the 79th Street Boat Basin
Tugboats on the Hudson River

More tugboats!
Tugboats on the Hudson River Tugboats on the Hudson River

The NYFD was also on hand.
NYFD Fireboat on the Hudson River NYFD Fireboat on the Hudson River

Lined up for the start of the race.
Tugboats on the Hudson River

The race to the finish
Tugboats on the Hudson River

After the race, the tugboats participate in other competitions, like a pushing competition. They go head to head, and the tug that is pushed backwards loses.
Tugboat pushing contest on the Hudson River Tugboat pushing contest on the Hudson River

More tugs hanging out on the river….
Tugboats on the Hudson River

The crews of the tugboats compete in a line throwing competition.
Tugboat line throwing competition Tugboat line throwing competition

The Tug Pegasus was built in 1907 and is the oldest Tugboat in the New York City region.
Tug Pegasus on the Hudson River Tug Pegasus on the Hudson River

After the race, the tugs dock on the pier, and you can get a very close look.
Tugboats on the Hudson River
Tugboats on the Hudson River

[Both of the panoramas are linked to larger versions. I have more images and high-resolution copies; contact me if you would like them.]

 Posted by at 11:18 am
Aug 242008
 

A spider has been hanging outside of my picture window. Spiders eat mosquitos, so I’m glad it is around. Tonight I tried to catch it so that I can release it in the garden. There’s a huge storm coming tomorrow, and I wouldn’t want it to get washed away. It was too fast for me, and scampered up to the top of the window. Does anyone know what kind of spider it is?
Spider over Brooklyn
Spider over Brooklyn
Spider over Brooklyn
Update: After a little bit of searching on the web, I think it is safe to say that this spider is a Araneus diadematus, or Cross Orbweaver. See more photos at BugGuide.net and Wikimedia Commons.

 Posted by at 8:34 pm
Aug 202008
 

I use Blogger to publish my blog. Recently, after making a post, I noticed that there was an advertisement for Picasa Web Albums for Google in the Blogger interface. I decided to check it out and clicked on the link. I saw a standard Google launching page with a license agreement. I don’t generally recall seeing license agreements for many Google services, so I decided to check it out. One interesting aspect of the licensing agreement was that it was nearly impossible to read online–the text was inserted into a HTML form with no line wraps. I had to copy and paste the text into a word processor. (I later found the the Picasa Web Albums TOS on a standalone web-page, but this is not what most users will be agreeing to in their click-through agreement.)

The license agreement contained the standard legal definitions at the top followed by many terms and conditions. One of the definitions was fairly interesting:

1. Your relationship with Google
1.1 Your use of Google’s products, software, services and web sites (referred to collectively as the “Services” in this document and excluding any services provided to you by Google under a separate written agreement) is subject to the terms of a legal agreement between you and Google.

The important part to note here is that “Services” is defined as any product from Google. It’s not just Picasa.

Later in the document are these terms:

9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services[…]

This is good news, right? Google is not claiming any right to your content. But what about that “limited license” in Section 11?

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.

Section 11 starts out so well: “You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content[…]” but then it takes an odd turn.

In short, you are essentially giving Google rights to your content to promote their services forever in any location for free. In fact, they are also stating that they can grab your content and give it to other companies. And you can’t stop them.

You may think that other services have similar terms. Not so. Here is the relevant sections from theTOS from Flickr (Yahoo):

With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Service.

Yahoo is not grabbing any additional rights than what they need to provide your service. And those rights go away when you remove your cotentn.

Interestingly, while Yahoo does respect your rights towards photos, graphics, audio, and video, they do make a license grab for othercontent:

With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.

In other words, don’t post a preview of your next novel to a Yahoo group!

Let’s also take a look at Apple’s Terms of Service for their MobileMe service:

Except for material we may license to you, Apple does not claim ownership of the materials and/or Content you submit or make available on the Service. However, by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public, you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. Said license will terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you or Apple remove such Content from the public area.

It’s pretty cut-and-dried. Apple only limits their rights to the ones they need. And once your content is no longer public, the rights terminate. It’s very similar to the Flickr license with respect to photos.

What about other Google services? Here is the relevant section in Blogger’s TOS:

Your Intellectual Property Rights. Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Google services and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying and distributing Google services.

Basically, here Google states that they need a license to distribute your content. However, it is only for the purposes of “displaying and distributing” the services; it is neither “perpetual” nor “irrevocable,” nor is it for “promoting” the services. Blogger’s terms are very similar to Flickr’s terms and Apple’s terms.

YouTube has similar language in their terms of service:

C. For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions. However, by submitting User Submissions 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 User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website and YouTube’s (and its successors’ and affiliates’) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the YouTube Website a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Website, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such User Submissions as permitted through the functionality of the Website and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in User Videos terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your User Videos from the YouTube Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of User Submissions that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in User Comments are perpetual and irrevocable.

If you read the terms carefully, YouTube is grabbing a license for both them and anyone else they want to specify “including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the YouTube Website.” While they are snagging some promotional rights, as distinct from Picasa Web Albums, the terms are neither “perpetual” nor “irrevocable.” In fact, YouTube explicitly states that the licenses terminate after you remove your content. They even reiterated their stance in a blog posting. (Except for your comments–you are pretty much giving YouTube rights to your comments forever.)

What does this mean for a professional photographer? You should think carefully before using Picasa Web Albums to display or store your content. It will most likely decrease the commercial value of your photos, and you will certainly lose a measure of creative control. Since Google is not making a claim of moral rights, you may still retain some control in some countries, but in the United States the terms and conditions that Google uses gives little recourse to photographers.

What does this mean for amateur photographers? If you don’t mind who uses your photos, feel free to use Picasa Web Albums. If there are photos of people in the images, Google may not be able to use them if they don’t also own model releases anyway. However, be aware that Google could use your photos in just about any way they deem fit, and that you will have limited recourse.

I plan on writing a quick note to Google–in my opinion, this kind of license grabbing is poor behavior. Of course, I’m not a lawyer and may have missed something obvious from the Picasa Web Albums Terms of Service. If I have, please let me know, and I’ll be glad to post a correction or even remove this post entirely.

[Edited on 2008-08-20 to add the following]
A Google search for “Picasa Terms Of Service” returns Picasa: Terms of Service as the first link. These terms are similar to the Flickr and Apple TOS. However, I believe this is an outdated terms of service. “Terms of Service” is the highlighted navigation link on the page; clicking on “Program Policies” and then back to “Terms of Service” returns you to the page described above–not the one returned from a Google web search.

 Posted by at 2:52 pm