![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-847580-100x100.png\")
if this is true why did they remove a couple lines from the terms of use stating that if you remove your content the license expires?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-31399-100x100.png\")
@deliciouscake: Because if you write a message on, record a video directly to, or take a picture to post on someone else's Facebook wall, it stays there after you close your account. RTFA.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-615231-100x100.png\")
Until I see the change of language in the TOS, I'm not satisfied.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
\"to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof\"
And iif it is only for functional purposes why do this lines exits?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-25946-100x100.png\")
@Santiago Ruiz: Don't forget adapt and create derivative works. The \"response\" from facebook is simply a farce.
@SamataNermin: I think you're misunderstanding people's issue. And as a student I can tell you I know plenty of people who have posted videos and photography that they might down the line want to use in portfolios, reels, or other things to promote themselves. They post it to facebook as a way to share it with other students and get feedback on works in progress.
Having somebody suddenly claim \"perpetual use\" over something you likely had locked under privacy settings to only share with friends is something that puts up red flags with anybody whose lives are governed by rights and ownership.
This clarification settles most of that for those people, at least it does for me.
I highly doubt anybody was concerned about \"playlists and swill.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-315381-100x100.png\")
@Santiago Ruiz: It seems like it is the law version of calling \"shotgun\" on everything. That doesn't fly.
anyone who thinks their content is safe on the interweb needs to get a clue. you're worried about playlists and other swill you post on facebook? i can pull a report with your last 5 addresses, your credit report and your criminal history in about 5 minutes. jesus.
@SamataNermin: What you call \"swill\", I call my life's work. And I well intend to protect my intellectual rights to my work. You can have my address, you can't have my art to make a profit on. Make sense?
@Kai Chinn:
I mean Scott, sorry, i was looking at the wrong name.
Thanks for hitting it on the Head Scott, way to go bro! :)
I'm a musician and i have legal rights to my music i have posted on facebook and now they change the TOS, i have \"MAJOR\" issues with that!
SamataNermin is the one who is calling it\"Swill\"...
If my copyright music is used for any gain by facebook, i will get the royalties of they will get sued, plain and simple, lawyer and ASCAP!
@SamataNermin: But that's not the issue at all. The issue is that Facebook's new TOS says they can take any original content I created & posted on their service and use that content for commercial gain. Me personally, I'd be pretty bothered by them taking content I made and putting it in ads, for example, knowing I had no control over that at all.
And now that the deletion clause has been removed, the only veto power available to users - deleting the content from Facebook - has also been revoked.
If Facebook really wants to promote itself as a site that encourages user-submitted content, they also should specifically delineate the rights they recieve for the actual mechanics of the service (e.g. forwarding content through messages, posting on friends' walls, etc.) and the rights they recieve for commercial promotional materials (ads, articles,etc.) Legal agreements don't allow for \"taking somebody's word for it.\"
I think people are less concerned with the legal ramifications of this move and more concerned with how douchey it is to retroactively change a site's TOS to have ownership and complete usage rights to all your personal material.
My estimate is that people feel more slighted than fearful. It's not about safety.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-793925-100x100.png\")
Right up to the point they are sued and the case is thrown out of court because the terms of service made you agree to arbitration.
So people are going to Click \"I Agree\" anyways...
@exkon:
I joined facebook years ago and this was \"NOT\" part of the TOS at that time, they have not informed people of the TOS changes and weather it's without notice or not, they tread in very deep water when it comes to dealing with copyright material art of any kind such as music,paintings, stc..
@exkon: People who have already signed up didn't click \"I Agree\" to this TOS. They agreed that the TOS they clicked on could be changed.
A subtle but distinct difference.
@Meiran: This is why the new terms wouldn't hold up in court in the US. The privacy laws were changed and now they have to inform their users that the policies have changed and they must agree to them again.
If Facebook is clear about its \"philosophy\" concerning user content, why is it unable to express this philosophy as clearly in its new terms of service. If you read the TOS and then Facebook's claims about the TOS, they simply don't reconcile. And intelligent users will note the condescending statement that the TOS uses \"overly formal language\" that we, the lay people, are apparently unable to comprehend. Maybe they're playing \"chicken\" to see how far they can go before people start leaving facebook. But then, even if you leave facebook, they apparently still keep you there.
Facebook has a bad habit of being totally condescending. Check out their first response to the News Feed controversy, for instance. Before they officially said \"my bad,\" they said \"calm down, it's not that big a deal. This is how it works.\" They failed to take into account that people KNEW how it works and THEY misunderstood some crucial social paradigms. They admit this two days later.
The fine print states they own everything forever but they claim it's really not the case. Oooooook.
I still have some questions for Facebook though.
If they claim the ownership of our content for promotional uses, can someone tell me why they are claiming the rights to that picture in this article:
[www2.canada.com]
This story made the news here in Canada last year and i remember at the time noticing the Facebook copyright on the picture.
@Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier: Because they are citing the source where they got the picture from. That's very common in Publishing, and applies to where ever the photo comes from, Getty Images, Facebook.com, etc.
@pmcpa2:
I get your point and you are completly right about it, but seing as the ownership of the picture now goes to Facebook proves how they become owners of all the content...
Surely you know just like me that it is very easy to find the owner of a picture on Facebook, why is there no mention of it.
It also shows how Facebook can't control the amount of data they \"own\" and what is done with it.
The Facebook rep could also claim they're trying to end world hunger, cure cancer and give everyone a pony. That still doesn't change the reality that users are bound to what is written in the TOS.
The TOS does not provide a clear definition for \"privacy settings.\" It does, however, provide a link that redirects to a page asking you to sign in or create a Facebook account. This has the effect of forcing you to agree to the TOS without any prior understanding of what privacy settings are. How Helpful!
Blogging sites have overcome the data persistence problem without the excessive licensing terms that Facebook uses. I've closed my Facebook account and will use services that offer a more reasonable TOS.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-189920-100x100.png\")
Over 350,000 views for the Consumerist article. I think it got so huge because it was also posted on Perez Hilton who gets millions of hits a day. I hope that besides the article Consumerist gets a whole new wave of readers. I'm happy for this site right now, especially because of how we need it with the way the economy is. Thanks for Digg too.
As far as Facebook's claims go, those agreements still made me feel uncomfortable, especially since I have stories/parts of scripts on there. I wouldn't want any of my information shared with those who aren't my friends.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-96883-100x100.png\")
While reading this post, the following NoScript warning appeared: \"NoScript filtered a potential cross-site scripting (XSS) attempt from (spacing mine)
\"h t t p ://api.connect.facebook.c o m \"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-851646-100x100.png\")
@Amelie: I got the same warning but have you noticed that when you choose to comment here that you are given the option to do so through your FaceBook account. I assume it has something to do with that ALTHOUGH I have never seen it happen before...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-309006-100x100.png\")
The notification that was posted on the Facebook blog regarding the changes to the Terms of Service agreement were posted after the changes had been made. Facebook made no mention that they would be reversing or removing parts of the TOS, simply that their intent was to consilidate:
\"We want to let you know that today we're updating our Terms of Use-the rules you and Facebook agree to when you sign up to use the site. We used to have several different documents that outlined what people could and could not do on Facebook, but now we're consolidating all this information to one central place. We've also simplified and clarified a lot of information that applies to you, including some things you shouldn't do when using the site.
Most of these things are pretty obvious; you probably wouldn't ever do them. For example, you probably don't \"provide any false personal information in your profile\" or \"intimidate or harass other users.\" But in order to help Facebook remain a safe and trusted environment, we think it's important to specifically mention behaviors like these in the \"Prohibited Conduct\" section.
As always, protecting your privacy and information is of the utmost importance to us, and these updates provide you with the same level of protection you have come to expect from Facebook.
You can check out the updated terms here.
Suzie White, Facebook's Corporate Counsel for Commercial Transactions, is representing, warranting, and agreeing.\"
It was a poor choice on their part to not give notification or specifics in advance of what they were doing. Though it was perfectly legal, it was borderline unethical and hopefully a valuable precident for other companies TOS in the future.
It doesn't matter what Facebook PR says, the TOS is the legal document in force. Facebook can afford the lawyers to make their intentions clear. This shows a lack of respect for their user rights? Why should I trust them to do the right thing?
I'm involved in the stock photography industry and no matter what Facebook tells anyone, the current contract is very, very broad and over-reaching. The current contract specifically states that they can do anything they want with your images, video, etc.... And, that includes sub-licensing it to others. They'd make the money and you wouldn't get a dime. Their contract clearly states \"You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service....\"
@Dean Siracusa: Yep, most people miss the real meat of the issue which is creative works uploaded to the site for sharing.
Unless they do a 180 on this issue I will never upload another picture to the site.
@snowmoon: The language isn't really clear, so maybe somebody can set me straight: Does this apply even to creative works that are merely linked through Facebook? I release music for free using a Creative Commons license, and if they claim \"irrevocable, perpetual\" license to my works just because I put up a link to my website, then they can kiss my fat honky ass.
@Ubik2501: I think they would be on pretty shaky ground if they tried to claim rights to stuff just linked to through Facebook. After all someone could link to the latest Transformers trailer or whatnot without the company, that owns said property, even knowing. For them to then go and claim \"ownership\" of said property would be \"unconscionable\", and thereby unenforceable under the law.
That said, when stuff is uploaded directly to their server, its gets a little more dicey.
That's been in their TOS and has been SOP for them for quite some time. As it is now, if you \"remove\" your account, it is deactivated, people can no longer access your content, but if you recreate an account it restores or gives an option to restore it. Non-exclusive rights to reuse in perpetuity are pretty standard for sharing sites. If you want to claim copyright on a picture, don't upload it to a public photo sharing site. The \"transferable\" part is a bit unnecessary but is likely to cover off-site advertising and similar, created by third parties.
Oh, and the best part: The Consumerist itself uses the sublicensing provided by that clause to allow you to comment by logging in with your facebook account.
I really don't care what they put in their contract. I don't trust ANY of these sites not use my material. What's the 1st thing rule of the internet children? don't post anything you don't want shared.
Here is what you should be thinking about if you want to play the social network game.
In exchange for my uploading materials to your site, you will receive a Limited, fully revocable, License to Display my materials on your network in the Original, forms as delivered to you, with full attribution to me as the author/copyright holder, for the duration of our engagement, being the period of time that we are entered into this arrangement, evidenced by my use of the username/password you have provided and the space on your network you have made available to me.
All others rights are Reserved including, but not limited to, reproduction, modification, distribution outside of the aforementioned space, subsidary public display, public performance, and or derivative works in any format, online or offline.
@XiangPandora:
YEA! that's what it should be and I'm working on talking to legal parties about this issue and see what can be done because i have uploaded my copyright material to facebook and want to know course of action to this issue and I intend to go fourth with legal action if necessary.
BS - Zuckerberg doesn't address the issue of MEDIA that is uploaded. only the info required for the apps and messaging. Until it is CLEARLY stated, that I retain ownership of any content I upload and that their \"license\" terminates when I delete my account, I will not upload any media. No photos, videos, audio or writing other than \"Notes\"
True that, Zuckerberg is dodging the proverbial bullet here with copyright material that has been uploaded by the creators themselves, you and I.
They have to answer this because it is the heart of the issue here, not notes and things not already having legal copyright ownership to stuff that is uploaded to the facebook server!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-403422-100x100.png\")
@Kelly Lincoln: I agree, and that's my beef with the new ToS. Zuckerberg did absolutely nothing to address the main issue, instead deciding to talk about messages and other crap that nobody cares about.
What does an account with Bernie Madoff and Facebook have in common?
No matter what was promised, in the end you will end up being screwe*.
Obviously the Consumerist article made them lose members. I deleted my Faceboo todayk SPECIFICALLY because of the change in TOS that the Consumerist alerted meto.
Granted, they still \"own\" what I had previously uploaded, but they won't own anything else.
If their license is subject to the privacy settings, then can't one just make all one's content visible to no one if you don't want Facebook to be able to exercise the license?
Obviously Facebook can just further modify their TOS or remove certain privacy controls. Thoughts?
I think that an bigger problem than Facebook claiming ownership of everything of yours that you upload is that they can claim ownership of everything of mine that you upload, even if I have no knowledge of your action.
So if someone uploads some Scientology tracts, does Facebook now own them? That would set up some interesting situations.
@Cynicor: They don't claim to own anything, they have the rights to everything. Big difference. So they get all the benefits with none of the repercussions.
Not only have they surreptitiously changed the TOS, but in a flagrant act of deliberate obfuscation and public misinformation, the Facebook TOS page (http://en-gb.facebook.com/terms.php) is using the following:
\"Date of Last Revision: 39848.\"
Perhaps cute to the pathetic admins of the network, star-dating revisions adds a hard-to-justify layer of opacity to the average user who wants to monitor when they are secretly changing the terms and their control over information.
Perhaps Facebook could please explain why I have to open Excel in order to figure out when you updated the TOS? Bloody thieves...
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-104054-100x100.png\")
Here's my thoughts: if ownership of the content automatically goes to Facebook when I upload it, doesn't that make Facebook automatically liable for anything I upload?
If I did post something that is considered libel, Facebook (as joint owner of that content) is now responsible for that content as well as I am? Therefore a libel lawsuit can be brought against Facebook as an owner of that content?
It's sketchy ground here, and I hope Facebook's lawyers are working through correcting this.
@tblain: They don't claim ownership, just an unlimited perpetual license/right to do whatever they want.
So you are still responsible for the image, but you can't stop them from doing whatever they want with it.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-226755-100x100.png\")
@tblain:
There's probably a \"We accept no responsibility for anything, anywhere, ever.\" clause in there as well.
I remember back on my old NationStates account how they had a similar ownership clause, \"All content you upload or create on NationStates.net is ours forever.\" followed immidiatly by \"NationStates.net accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any content uploaded to the site.\"
Basically it all boils down to ass covering and DURRHURR.
Facebook is obfuscating their real intent by carefully switching out words. Their terms of service indicates they have \"license\" to your work...not that they \"own\" it. There is a legal difference. They claim license to basically do whatever they want with it! You still own it. Big deal. Notice how in their response they say \"we never claimed ownership!\" Well, no one accused facebook of taking ownership. Facebook takes license, which for practical purposeses, there is little difference. Its like someone accusing them of robbing a bank, and their defese is \"We did not steal that car!\"
There are huge legal issues here, most notably privacy and copyright. With respect to copyright, Facebook's new TOS is tantamount the New York Public Library announcing that they now own the copyright to every book that is in their library simply because they created the space for that book to be viewed. There is no legal way they can do this, and there will be voluminous lawsuits if they try to do anything with the content. In my mind the ONLY legal right they should have to disclose anything in someone's account is if it is indicative of a crime that has been or is about to be committed.
This is all sound and fury, signifying nothing. The changes made (and for that matter, the original provision) do NOT give ownership of posts, pics, etc. to Facebook -- it's only a license. So people who post their own copyrighted pics, video, text, etc., still own and maintain the copyright for those items. The new terms merely allow FB to maintain copies (via the license) of those items after an account is terminated. Under the old TOS, if a friend of yours posted to your wall and then killed his account, technically FB was obligated to wipe clean its site of all remnants of your friend, including any wall posts, tagged photos, etc., lest it violate the terms of its license from the friend. Obviously, this was not a tenable situation for them, and frankly would probably generate howls from users who saw parts of their wall vanish overnight.
As for the fear of FB making money off your information, there are two important factors to note. First, the license of User Content is subject to your privacy settings. Therefore, unless your content is open to everyone (both within and without FB), I think it would be difficult to for FB to make money off of it. Second, the license of User Content as well as your name, likeness and image is limited to using, storing, publishing, etc. the information \"on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.\" So, if your privacy settings do not allow the entire world to see your User Content, then it can't be used for promotion outside of the FB community. Yes, arguably your name, likeness and image could be used to promote FB outside the FB site, but FB couldn't sublicense an image of you drinking a Pepsi to Pepsi for the purposes of promoting Pepsi.
Sorry for the long post, but there's a lot of misinterpretation in the comments and I wanted to try to clarify the \"lawyerspeak\" in the TOS. Certainly FB could have rolled this out better, but at the end of the day it is not a significant change in the TOS. I am an attorney, but neither I nor my firm represent FB or any related interests.
@cronimi: I forgot to mention: If you want to protect your User Content after you terminate your account, it appears all you need to do is restrict access to it via the privacy settings prior to terminating the account. Since the license of User Content is subject to the privacy settings, even though FB would maintain a license to the content, it effectively would be prohibited from using it. In privacy settings, limit access to all information to \"only me\" or, where that isn't available, \"only friends\". Then remove all of your friends.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-477349-100x100.png\")
I'm cutting what little info I had on FB and intend to leave a skeleton account. Has anyone noticed the FB advertisement to make your image into a cartoon..... sounds like facial imaging to me. Wonderful Big Brother.
Hahah Scientology vs. Facebook what a battle that would be.
A) Facebook's statement about what they intended is at best completely irrelevant and at worst perhaps deceptive practices. I don't care what the person to whom I sign away my organs says they intend to do, I can still wind up in a bathtub full of ice with no kidney and liver and no legal standing to sue. (Boy does that metaphor sound paranoid!) But the point is, their TOS are the only thing which matters. Their 'intentions' can change at a moment's notice. Even the best of companies, with the most generous TOS can go through bankruptcy which voids such agreements. Many times bankrupted online companies have sold member info because their TOS no longer applied.
B)Should there real intent be to allow posts and messages to remain after account closure, they can self-limit in the TOS. Not all restrictions in TOS have to be on the member. \"Facebook agrees to limit this use to member intentions and no license by Facebook implies ownership of or responsibility for member copyrighted material. Facebook will notify any member before any public use of their material, whether automated or by Facebook staff. Blah-de-blah...\" Facebook, if those are your intentions, then put your money where your mouth is. My hope is member pressure will induce just this because, to me, the original TOS were too far-reaching and vague.
3) When your TOS can literally be interpreted to make legal taking a Facebook application, using any personal images in advertising, or making public any private conversations, it is too broad. A literal reading would even allow Facebook to defend itself if its employees blackmailed customers using their private conversations and images. There are prohibitions in contract law against blatantly one-sided contracts. This contract is so blatantly one-sided, it needs to be examined by a court.
4) Just to reiterate, their memos and blogs mean NOTHING. Only the TOS matters and it is too absolute for any reasonable requirements on their part. It only takes a shift in the corporate wind at Facebook for all the history of member uploads to be on a CD on eBay.
Oh, one more fun metaphor.
The invitation: Parking spaces and bicycle racks are for public use. Enjoy them.
TOS: By using a parking space or bicycle rack, you agree that your vehicle (auto or bicycle) is the property of Parking Lieberstrand, Inc. in all ways and in perpetuity. We can drive it, wreck it, drain the gas, sell the tires, basically anything. It is no longer your real property.
Memo: Of course Parking Lieberstrand has no intention of joyriding in member vehicles. Hmmm. That is a hot looking Ferrari, though.
In reality, it's not the same, actually worse, because Facebook can duplicate and use your material without your ever being aware.
Can minors even consent to these Terms of Service, as they are rewritten? Would parents agree to allow their children's content to be used without their own consent?
How is Facebook's ToS consistent with other sites? Here is Myspace and Livejournals ToS's claiming no ownership of content posted by users.
MySpace.com does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, or any other materials (collectively, \"Content\") that you post to the MySpace Services. After posting your Content to the MySpace Services, you continue to retain all ownership rights in such Content, and you continue to have the right to use your Content in any way you choose. By displaying or publishing (\"posting\") any Content on or through the MySpace Services, you hereby grant to MySpace.com a limited license to use, modify, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content solely on and through the MySpace Services.
LiveJournal claims no ownership or control over any Content posted by its users. The author retains all patent, trademark, and copyright to all Content posted within available fields, and is responsible for protecting those rights, but is not entitled to the help of the LiveJournal staff in protecting such Content. The user posting any Content represents that it has all rights necessary to post such Content (and for LiveJournal to serve such Content) without violation of any intellectual property or other rights of third parties, or any laws or regulations;
I think the real issue is Facebook's transparency. Seriously people, how many of you actually think Facebook is going to start selling your photos for money. Yes, the bait and switch was shady, but it's not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be. If you're so worried about it, make sure you have privacy settings on and just be careful what you upload.
Perhaps Consumerist should stop throwing stones?
In its TOS (at [www.consumermediallc.org] ) it claims the same perpetual, irrevocable, etc. etc. crep.
If it's rotten fish, it matters not the newspaper its wrapped in.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-298828-100x100.png\")
DOUBLE SPEAK!
As a photographer I have one question.
Hey FB, do you have a model release from my models to use their likeness? No you don't, OK then see you in court.
Can someone explain to me *why* you would want all your friend's comment displayed on you wall should they decide to delete their Facebook account? Why would anyone \"howl,\" as someone put it, if some wall posts disappeared. As it is, Facebook now displays way more of the past history of account activities since they revised formats. Why do you want to be reminded of the old bf or gf (or spouse) you broke up with last year, relationship statuses, photos, and messages, or other relationships for that matter, if that person decides they want to have a real life again & no longer be on Facebook? To me, it should be a given than their photos and messages and whatnot should diappear from your page if they want to take a hiatus or permanent deletion from Facebook. Geez. What did people do before Facebook? have some privacy? Have real relationships in real time instead of 500 \"close, personal friends\" all up in their business? I hope the lawsuit works, personally. Facebook is the new Big Brother, and people have signed on like sheep, as though it's \"better\" than the adolescent MySpace.
Doesn't apply in Canada. The Copyright Act 13(4) requires that they have the assignment of my copyright in writing. Them updating their terms of service don't count.
If you’re concerned about Facebook’s recent changes to their TOS and really want to make a statement, cancel your account. When Facebook starts loosing members, maybe that will make them look at their TOS again. I removed my account today and will not go back until Facebook changes their policies.
Facebook changed their policies because of us.
Facebook has changed back it's copyright policy on user content. This happened because one person (Chris Walters) was willing to speak up. I thank him for making an issue about the change in ownership of Facebook content. I thank Facebook for having the ability to listen and change per all of our request. Thank you to all of you who supported us in having our voice be heard. And for the rest of you who just mocked relentlessly, your welcome from all of us who spoke up.
Face Book Changes: [www.dtechweb-blog.com]
The mockers: [www.webpronews.com]
Ok seriously though....I don't think any of your pictures (speaking to the general public) are that great that Facebook will want to keep them, use them, or sell them. If they want to use a picture of me while drunk at a party or hanging out at a friend's house go for it.
imagine the bloody hackers - they arent concerned about them , ads= moneyyyyyyyyyyyyyy , thats what they want - in regards to selling your information, well they have ALLOT of profiles on here that really are like porn - i signed up and didnt know last year - i had many people with 'alternative lifestyles' wanting to be on my list - i thought ''what'', when I learned my way around, then i was able to put a stop to that . These idiots will block your acct for too many wall posts , adding friends, etc.You tell me mutimillionare zukerboy DOESNT care about selling lascivious photos to put on other websites?? Oh man, that is not even a question ... MONEY rules on here ...
I won't be happy until they take that \"perpetual\" license baloney out of the TOS
@DoyleElymus:
I agree with this thread, it's a shame they are saying one thing and the terms say something else and means a 'LOT\" more than what they have replied above legally speaking.
@DoyleElymus: Yeah, their \"clarification\" is a bit of a farce if not followed up with some changes in the TOS. We shouldn't be placated so easily.
@DoyleElymus: me too, because its in the TOS it makes me uneasy...
Up until last year I had my address and phone numbers up on facebook for select friends to see. I decided to take them down just encase my facebook got hacked or they changed the TOS in such a way that they would exploit that info. After reading the earlier post about the TOS change I'm glad I removed that info.