The $100 rule isn’t the only interesting clause contained in the contract that Google requires publishers to agree to before they can join the company’s AdSense program. There’s also this:
You shall not, and shall not authorize or encourage any third party to … engage in any action or practice that reflects poorly on Google or otherwise disparages or devalues Google’s reputation or goodwill. You acknowledge that any attempted participation or violation of any of the foregoing is a material breach of this Agreement and that we may pursue any and all applicable legal and equitable remedies against You, including an immediate suspension of Your account or termination of this Agreement, and the pursuit of all available civil or criminal remedies.
So before they can run ads from Google, publishers have to agree to refrain from doing anything – like publishing an article, say – that “reflects poorly on Google or otherwise disparages or devalues Google’s reputation or goodwill”? Hmm. Can you imagine the outcry if a mainstream media outlet like the Washington Post agreed not to say bad things about a company in return for advertising dollars? And yet that’s exactly what Google seems to be demanding from bloggers and other online publishers. (Actually, come to think of it, the Washington Post and a lot of other mainstream publishers do run ads from Google on their web sites; I wonder if they agreed to this term or if they were given a different contract.) Yahoo, by the way, doesn’t have such a clause in its contract for its ad-serving network.
The good news is that most bloggers and publishers don’t seem to be paying any attention to this clause and, so far as I know, Google doesn’t seem to be enforcing it. Still, it’s curious that a company whose ostensible mission is to make all the world’s information freely available should be such a control freak when it comes to information about itself.
I guess it depends on what the word “action” means under US, specifically California law. I’m certainly not convinced that this is what the terms & conditions would amount to under UK law.
Alasdair:
Good point. The language, though, seems so broad to me – “any action or practice that reflects poorly on Google or otherwise disparages …” – that it’s hard to assume it wouldn’t cover the main “action or practice” that publishers engage in, ie, publishing. But if there’s a lawyer out there who would like to chime in, please do so.
In addition to the formal legal interpretation of the language, you also have to account for the way an average person (say a blogger) would interpret it. If you’re one of the lucky few who makes a substantial income from AdSense, would the clause give you pause before you published something that might antagonize Google, for fear that the company might take away your livelihood? (It’s not an empty fear, as this guy can tell you.)
Nick
But Nick, Yahoo is worse – oh my god, it’s an outrage, Yahoo Publishing Network is THE GESTAPO!!!
Right here:
“Reserved Rights. In addition to any right not explicitly disclaimed or waived by Overture, we reserve the right to:
“1. investigate you, Your Site, Your RSS Feed(s), your owners, officers, directors, agents, contractors and employees, at any time;”
THEY CAN “INVESTIGATE YOU” – AT ANY TIME!!!
It’s a Police State! Just look at this collective punishment, “agents, contractors and employees” – if your boss signs up, YAHOO CAN INVESTIGATE YOU!!!
And look at this:
“19 No Public Statements. You may not issue any press release or other public statement regarding the Agreement, Yahoo! Search Marketing, Overture, Yahoo! and/or Overture′s or Yahoo! Inc.′s affiliates, or partners or advertisers without the prior written consent of an authorized person at Overture.”
You can’t TALK ABOUT *ANY* YAHOO *ADVERTISER* on your blog without clearing it with Yahoo! (that would be a “public statement”) Nothing, complete and total gagging!
Fortunately, evil Yahoo has not yet shut down the net – but you must sound the alarm!!!!!!!
[For the humor impaired – the above is ironic]
Seth, My readers are fully capable of picking up on irony without having their noses rubbed in it. Please show them some respect next time. That No Public Statements clause is interesting, isn’t it? Since when you join YPN/Overture you become a partner of Yahoo, I believe this clause prohibits you from making a public statement about yourself without first clearing it through “an authorized person at Overture.” Those authorized persons must be really busy. Nick
Sorry Nick – if there’s anything years of Net-communication has taught me, it’s that irony doesn’t travel well. Even if almost all the regular readers of this blog are witty sophisticates (and there’s always one guy in any crowd who doesn’t get it, and that’s the guy who responds), you don’t know who will come in from a link, especially from posts which stir the pot.
No offense intended, just caution arising from experience.
there’s always one guy in any crowd who doesn’t get it
Screw him.
By the way, when I criticized you in my previous comment I was being ironic. Which I believe makes you the guy in the crowd who doesn’t get it. Or maybe I’m just being ironic now. I’ve lost track.
You jerks.
It’s interesting with the Internet being the new frontier how some the basic principles/ethics of doing business get thrown out the window.
But who invented irony?
Hint: it’s a rock band
An ancient Greek rock band? Socrates and his Wandering Dudes?