Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

Let me clarify ....<p>TL;DR - it's hyperbole. answer the negative. if they didn't get this permission from you - you could sue them for copyright infringement. every service does it. don't freak.<p>Long Version:<p>The key to the text is "non-exclusive" - generally this grants the nonexclusive rights to display the material on a Web site. It also allows the licensee (ala DropBox) let their company use, manage, display [etc] your files.<p>It's a fairly standard contractual term now days - for example see<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/t/terms" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/t/terms</a> at 6 C OR even your Gmail Terms ... [<a href="http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en</a> at 11.]<p>Youtube - "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, publish, adapt, make available online or electronically transmit, and perform the Content in connection with the Service ...."<p>Gmail - "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. This license 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."<p>Generally, the language uses "non-exclusive" in its context which is OK. It basically allows internet services to be internet services<p>i.e. if they didn't have a non-exclusive licence, how could they use your files - which contain copyright content you own - in their services ? - they couldn't :) By asking for a non-exclusive licence, it means you are permitting DropBox to use it for the purposes of<p>"worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable rights to use, copy, distribute, prepare derivative works (such as translations or format conversions) of, perform, or publicly display that stuff to the extent we think it necessary for the Service."<p>If you're uncomfortable with this term, then unfortunately you'll be uncomfortable using any service on the Internet as it's generally required to provide a service :) The terms agreement incorporates their Privacy Agreement - thus meaning they still owe you the obligations outlined in their privacy clause. They cannot distribute your content without your permission.<p>"But, but, but .... they should have to identify copyright not me"<p>Again, you are giving them to non-exclusive right. If you have MP3 music [legally obtained for example] - you have ownership for that file. You are provided with the right to store that file for personal use just as you have the right to share that file with your friends. The rights associated with this file are governed by the terms of service when you purchased that file [i.e. iTunes]. Go and read your rights regarding MP3 Music purchased from iTunes.<p>You are providing DropBox with a non-exclusive right - not an "exclusive right" which would be just that "exclusive" and therefore you have licensed it only to DropBox per see - to be able to storage, transform ... etc that file. The Privacy policy is incorporated within the Terms agreement - thereby inferring they cannot "distribute your content without your consent".<p>Dropbox do NOT "know" where you purchased the file or the terms surrounding every single file they store on your behalf [how could they?] - it's your responsibility - not theirs - hence the point of the term.<p>"You must ensure you have the rights you need to grant us that permission."<p>Dropbox is fine. Use it. Or stop using Gmail and most other services ....

When the new TOS were announced I think a lot of balked at reading those statements. The examples given in the TOS (e.g. "to convert your files") all seem reasonable, but as Indyan pointed out, it sure leaves the door open to some fuzzy interpretations.<p>Quick question, if AT&#38;T suddenly bought Dropbox, would you all feel as passive about the new TOS or be quick to get your files out of there?<p>What about Facebook? Microsoft? or Silver Lake Partners?<p>I understand it's easier for Dropbox to be vague in their TOS so they don't have to spell out the service or future features that might require expanded agreements.... but given the nature of the service and the previous fiascos Dropbox has had already this year, it sure seems like they are cutting themselves some undeserved slack with regards to specificity.<p>I appreciate that they rewrote the terms to be more human readable, but why not spell out "You agree to let us duplicate, read and write your files in the case where you share, copy, publish or convert your files via the web or client software interface" -- or something following that.<p>I don't have a company with 200 million users though, so maybe the logistics of being that specific are an impossibility. I'd also be a lot more forgiving of this broad language if Dropbox has never had any hickups, so my personal nervousness is mixed in there.

This is exactly like the broadly misunderstood TOS for Facebook, Etsy and other services.<p>They <i>need</i> a license to your work in order to distribute it, and display it to others or perhaps even you.<p>These clauses have been in TOSs for years and years, and only now people have taken notice. The average person doesn't know much about IP though, and probably couldn't tell you the difference between a copyright and a patent.<p>Companies sometimes do overreach in this step though, conveniently claiming rights to use your images royalty-free in advertisements for the service and around their site without you being involved. It's important for people to know what they're signing over, and perhaps it is more than necessary or intended in some cases. However, the mere notice that you are extending a copyright license to a company to whom you are uploading media is not in itself suspicious, unusual or an attempt to take rights from you.

It specifically states that you the rights you grant them are limited "to the extent we think it necessary for the Service."<p>The "we think" might be a little ambiguous, but given that Dropbox is a tool for sharing files (with yourself or others), it seems reasonable that you grant them rights to do so.

If my assumption of dropbox's intent is correct, I prefer facebook's approach to this problem. Instead of wording terms exclusively in their favor they could have extended an olive branch...<p>"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."<p>(from <a href="https://www.facebook.com/terms.php" rel="nofollow">https://www.facebook.com/terms.php</a>)<p>facebook's license to share the picture of your cat terminates after you delete it from your profile. Had dropbox used similar strategy while drafting their terms, this would not be news...<p>(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and do not pretend to be one on TV.)

hi all, we've been reading all the feedback carefully and made a change to licensing section to clarify what we meant.<p>the change is highlighted on our blog: <a href="http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846" rel="nofollow">http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846</a>

"We sometimes need your permission to do what you ask us to do with your stuff"... " or publicly display that stuff to the extent we think it necessary for the Service."<p>So, they need to cover themselves legally if you put something in your public folder, or share it with someone else.<p>Besides, if you encrypt everything then it's not like they can do anything with it.<p>It's just a cya clause.

It's often good to look at how other companies do things to see if it's out of the ordinary. Turns out this line is extremely common. Google, for example:<p><pre><code> 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 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. This license 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. </code></pre> <a href="http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS</a><p>Also, Drew and Arash just posted an update to the blog with clarified language: <a href="http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846" rel="nofollow">http://blog.dropbox.com/?p=846</a>

I only use dropbox for backup of my computer and do not want Dropbox to share or otherwise access my files for any reason other than to preserve them for my use. I do not want Dropbox to make them available to anyone else without my explicit authorization. The revised TOS seems to stress the file sharing aspect which makes me very uncomfortable continuing to use Dropbox.<p>Here is what I wrote back to tos-feedback@dropbox.com (interesting that the default reply-to was no-reply@dropboxmail.com which doesn't make it seem like they are really interested in feedback)<p><pre><code> Please consider splitting the service into file sharing and backup and having a different agreement for each. I cannot and do not accept these new terms for your backup service and will have to look for an alternate supplier if you cannot amend your new approach: these are not the terms I agreed to when I signed up for the service. In addition, two weeks notice strikes me as a very short window for such a significant change: please consider extending the notice period.</code></pre>

TL;DR - this is no different from almost every other site that many of us already participate in that includes an aspect of uploading/sharing content and in no way does this imply ownwership.

Account deleted, problem solved.<p>Can't believe i recommended this service to my friends.

I am no lawyer, and most legalese is absolute greek to me, but that clause genuinely freaks me out. However, commonsense also tells me that Dropbox will never do something like sharing/profiting out of other's files. That will drive them to the ground. I am not really sure what to make out of this. Is this some clause that Dropbox had to put in to save their butt, or is there a sinister motive behind this?

Another reminder on not to use "the cloud" for anything critical or confidential, at least without encryption. Dropbox I used for synchronizing meeting notes, which may or may not be something I'm comfortable sharing. For example GitHub is completely different, as all my code is anyway open.<p>So, Dropbox account now removed. Won't be going back.

As soon as I get time to investigate it properly, I'm going to be replacing Dropbox with Fuse + S3FS + EncFS. I recommended Dropbox to a lot of people and invited a lot of people to it, but assuming the above combination works I'll certainly be recommending it to techy friends in the future, and if I continue to mention Dropbox to non-tech folks (my parents etc) it'll be with a lot more qualifiers than previously.<p>I'd like to be sure that if all my data is exposed to someone it's as a result of my own cock-ups, not anyone else's. I don't think Dropbox are evil but I'm not feeling too confident about keeping sensitive data there any more. Their recent errors have probably only highlighted things I should have thought of previously - lesson learned there.

I use Dropbox for everything as I use several different computers (the computer lab at university, work, Windows 7 on my laptop, Ubuntu on my laptop). I cannot see myself without this service...but this is ridiculous. I am seriously considering deleting my account.

If you are technologically savvy (as one may assume, since you are here after all) and you feel uncomfortable with this change (as I do), I would suggest looking in to some of the other projects around that offer somewhat similar (albeit not as feature complete) self-hosted solutions: <a href="https://github.com/philcryer/lipsync" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/philcryer/lipsync</a> <a href="http://sparkleshare.org/" rel="nofollow">http://sparkleshare.org/</a>

Well, of course you're granting them a license to your files. Otherwise you could sue them for copying your files to their server.

I'm curious as to how long would it take some open-source enthusiast to come up with an open-source version of Dropbox-like software that you can install on your VPS and sync files through your own server. I mean, that would be awesome, but not too profitable.

This reminds me of Jason Scott's classic: "Fuck the cloud" <a href="http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1717" rel="nofollow">http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/1717</a>

disappointing bit of CYA, after they failed to notify ALL of their customers that authentication had been temporarily, accidentally disabled for a few hours.

Flagged for the FUD title chosen by the submitter.

Please advise as to simple alternatives.

What Dropbox TOS could have been<p>1. We, Dropbox, copy your files in order to enable sharing and retrieving said files. Those copies of files we use still carry the sharing permissions you enable and your copyrights fully intact.

"to the extent we think it necessary for the Service."<p>Does this include if they think its necessary for them to turn off paswords for several hours? I am curious that about the timing:<p><pre><code> * Fuck up security[0] * Get hit with class action suit[1] * Change TOS </code></pre> [0]<a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678576" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2678576</a> [1]<a href="http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/06/cloud-site-dropbox-drops-the-ball.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2011/06/cloud-site-dro...</a>