Facebook's terms of service (TOS) used to say that when you closed an account on their network, any rights they claimed to the original content you uploaded would expire. Not anymore.
]]> Now, anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later.* Want to close your account? Good for you, but Facebook still has the right to do whatever it wants with your old content. They can even sublicense it if they want.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 or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) 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.
That language is the same as in the old TOS, but there was an important couple of lines at the end of that section that have been removed:
You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. 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.
Furthermore, the "Termination" section near the end of the TOS states:
The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: Prohibited Conduct, User Content, Your Privacy Practices, Gift Credits, Ownership; Proprietary Rights, Licenses, Submissions, User Disputes; Complaints, Indemnity, General Disclaimers, Limitation on Liability, Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service, Arbitration, Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction and Other.
Make sure you never upload anything you don't feel comfortable giving away forever, because it's Facebook's now.
(Note that as several readers have pointed out, this seems to be subject to your privacy settings, so anything you've protected from full public view doesn't seem to be usable in other ways regardless.)
Oh, you also agree to arbitration, naturally. Have fun with that.
Still, the interesting thing about this change in our terms is that it highlights the importance of these issues and their complexity. People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them-like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on-to other services and grant those services access to those people's information. These two positions are at odds with each other. There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with.
We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload. The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend). Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user's privacy settings. So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info "in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof." Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail. For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.
New TOS (from 4 Feb 2009) [Facebook]
old TOS (Thanks to Clark!)
(Photo: Jacob Bøtter)
i have facbook but i am blocked i need help getting unbloked
]]>However, I don't think Facebook was founded with the intention of being a profit machine. I also don't think Mark Zuckerberg was trying to make his millions off this project while studying as a computer science major at Harvard. But that's open for interpretation as well. It's just unfortunate how far Facebook has come from being a fun, ad-free, friendly environment to this cluttered, cyberstalking-enabled mess of a thing.
But I'm still using it so all in all, they've done something right.
]]>Facebook is reay to monetize. It was bound to happen, they are huge now, the biggest social network in the world. Google is even a little nervous!
Find out more info here [facebook-google.synthasite.com]
]]>This photo is copyrighted to James Kruppa
And cannot be sale or used by publicity agencies
without permission of his owner.
This photo is copyrighted to James Kruppa
And cannot be sale or used by publicity agencies
without permission of his owner.
Legally facebook can not sublet anyones personal information, without severe consequences, if they do legally you can sew them, and more than likely you will win, because this is your content, not theres, just like when you upload a new profile picture if you do not check the box saying it is yours you can not upload it because it is not yours and facebook can get in severe trouble its the same thing, this content is not theres, so if you want to disclose your information just sew facebook after you close your account for millions of dollars and your photos and information back, they want dare lose millions over something so minor.
]]>Kiss my What! I am moving pics off and going to the basic. I will be finding another online source for stroage, maybe a flashdrive. This is stupid and I am very disappointed in the sneaky, but legal, way FB is soing business. got any hedge funds or AIG or ENON deals working FB?
]]>So does this mean if i put a song on here Facebook can do what they want with it?
]]>s with oogle Groups,once you are in you are screwed>Google promotes pornography on their Google Group,and wii not remove your email if they ever get it.Facebook is just another example of how the establishment wants to know everything and eventually control everything.When the feds come a-knockin,Facebook has to give it up'Remember this every time you upload.
]]>2. Facebook does not get exclusive rights, so you still retain your rights to the material you post on Facebook.
Should you, for example, decide one day to publish your entire Facebook output as an anthology, you would be perfectly within your rights, though you probably should not rely on Facebook to maintain the record of your doings.
]]>This is rubbish and must be changed. If not, then we facebook should cease to exist- period!
]]>I do not give you permission, whatever you write, to earn money from my photos or profile. As stated this is NEW terms, and was not an agreement when I started FACEBOOK....you are acting like the government, and look where they are!
]]>Unfortunately, we cannot release the information you requested unless we receive
a valid subpoena or court order. Additionally, please be aware that there are
situations where we may be unable to retrieve the information that you have
requested due to technical limitations. You should contact a lawyer or your
local law enforcement agency and discuss this issue with them. If you decide to
pursue legal action, have the lawyer or officer contact us at
privacy@facebook.com, and we'll communicate with them regarding the issue.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
Thanks,
Daisy
User Operations
Facebook
I told them I just wanted an email from my account to privacy. They then sent me an email saying: Hi Allie,
I am very sorry for any inconvenience. We would like to investigate this
potential abuse on Facebook further. Please provide the web address (URL) to the
page containing the offensive content. Please also provide the exact name and
networks of the person responsible, and if possible, the web address (URL) to
his or her profile page or search listing. We will then review the material and
take appropriate action based on our Terms of Use. Rest assured that this report
will be kept confidential.
Thanks for contacting Facebook,
Daisy
User Operations
Facebook
I want to know what facebook is keeping the information for if they can't give it to the sender and also why would they think it was a good idea for me to name names and implicate the people who I happen to be in court against as I am accused of stalking? I do not think facebook is secure and I do not think they are trustworthy. I have deleted my account and I urge others to do the same as they have absolutely no desire to help you out, and yes I had them help me set my privacy settings up as high as they go and I was still bothered. I also asked to remove my email from my page and they told me it was on there and there was nothing they could or would do to hide it. Be very very careful and save any and all emails from them, trust me I learned my lesson.
]]>What do you get when you combine leading people search technology and the personal data of 50 million+ users? A REALLY, REALLY, BAD idea called mylife.com. Promote your privacy by deleting your former reunion.com profile.
Read more: [socialmeteor.com]
]]>If facebook used the photos for commercial purposes, thats a problem.
]]>From LinkedIn's TOS:
"License and warrant your submissions: You do not have to submit anything to us, but if you choose to submit something (including any User generated content, ideas, concepts, techniques and data), you must grant, and you actually grant by concluding this Agreement, a nonexclusive, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual, unlimited, assignable, sublicenseable, fully paid up and royaltyfree right to us to copy, prepare derivative works of, improve, distribute, publish, remove, retain, add, and use and commercialize, in any way now known or in the future discovered, anything that you submit to us, without any further consent, notice and/or compensation to you or to any third parties. By submitting any information to us, you represent and warrant that such submission is accurate, is not confidential, and is not in violation of any contractual restrictions or other third party rights. You further agree to inform LinkedIn in the event that any such information has changed since your registration with LinkedIn and, if appropriate, you agree to make such modifications yourself to your profile."
Many ISP's have similar boilerplate in their TOS especially if they host user web pages. A quick search around the net will find this verbiage is more common than not.
If you want total IP rights control over what you post on the web then buy yourself a domain and some hosting space at a reputable hosting service (check their TOS first).
https://register.facebook.com/privacy/?view=platform&tab=overview
First, copyrights apply to physical representations of content, regardless of the form. In other words, you own copyrights to the image you took, to the one you uploaded to your computer, and the one you upload to Facebook. But Facebook is saying they have archived all your content, and guess what -- that additional image is copyrighted by them.
Lastly, I'm not sure why anybody is saying Facebook doesn't have the right to edit, sell, or use your image for promotions. The agreement under which you upload content says that you do. Somebody said some obscure international treaties prohibit prejudicial uses. The term isn't just a catch phrase. You'd have to prove the use was prejudicial. And again, that only applies to images "you hold copyright to". If facebook is archiving, it means they've made a copy -- and they own it.
]]>Post here: [www.tomhcanderson.com]
Tom H. C. Anderson
Managing Partner
Anderson Analytics, LLC
This is nothing new. I read that statement shortly after Facebook started to become popular 2 years ago, and have never used Facebook because of that clause.
I realized on day 1 that "hide" is not "delete". I was interested in why the word was being used, then read the policies in detail and found the statement everyone is FINALLY NOW UP IN ARMS ABOUT?
People, this is not new. That clause has been in there since the beginning.
Duh.... There is a reason Facebook is free... Read the fine print next time.
Glad I protected myself by not ever using the service.
]]>Anyone who takes pictures is covered by certain implied copyright laws. The photos I have posted are covered under implied copyright law and express law due to me keeping tight records as well as photo releases. It sounds like though "some" power is there that could be abused, that is with all things averywhere. Long story short, There is no evil corporate ceo with a maniacal laugh just waiting in the wings for the next photo or profile to be opened just so he can take control of it. Take a deep breath, enjoy life, and relax.
]]>Anyone who takes pictures is covered by certain implied copyright laws. The photos I have posted are covered under implied copyright law and express law due to me keeping tihght records as well as photo releases. Long story short, There is no evil corporate ceo with a maniacal laugh just waiting for the next photo or profile to be opened just so he can take control of it.
]]>See tsuinami.org for a first stab at flushing out the idea.
]]>My main concern with facebook is photos of children posted on facebook. Friends sharing pictures of their children they haven't seen in years on facebook. This isn't right for Facebook to have control of children photos.
this was a fun place to find all your lost friends now it's another business deal for Facebook.
and they have a right to your name. what are they going to do witht he right to everyone's names.
This is just wrong.
Gee thanks Facebook. First you give us a place to feel comfortable chatting with friends and then you do the unthinkable. Your just like every other profit making conglomerate. Now you show your true colors.
I am glad to see that Facebook are reviewing their TOS and are asking for comments from users the following has been posted on the Facebook site today.
Terms of Use Update
Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.
If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
]]>Time to cancel my account and warn my daughter, an artist, to protect her work
]]>Ridonkulous!!!
just cause facebook is gaining popularity worldwide, does not give them a free pass to do this kind of thing.
]]>Maybe someone better versed in law could clarify one way or the other, but I fail to see how "our TOS are subject to change without notice" could actually hold up in a court of law. Doesn't that create far too much room for abuse?
Notwithstanding how documents without a physical signature are difficult to hold up in court anyway (see: "click here to agree" end-user software licence agreements vs. physically signed corporate software site-licences), it seems outright ridiculous that an unsigned agreement that changes without notice at any time -- thereby becoming a different set of terms, one which the user in fact did not originally "agree" to in any way -- would be legally-binding and enforceable.
"I have altered the agreement. Pray I do not alter it further." -- Darth Vader
]]>غياث المدهون
]]>@Raeann Mundell: In this post I note that Raeann Mundell comes to us courtesy of Facebook. Hmn. Try again when your bias isn't showing sweetheart.
]]>If that's the case, why isn't that language in the ToS? Just because someone "promised" to do so doesn't mean anything.
]]>Excellent find. It shows what were talking about in action. It says All Rights Reserved and the Attribution is Facebook.com
]]>Oh - and one more check at 2:26am Eastern Time, they've changed again.
"Terms of Use Update
Over the past few days, we have received a lot of good feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised."
You had it Patrick! Go Consumerist!!!!!
]]>That's as of 2:15am Eastern Time. I copied it and pasted it directly into the blog, so the timestamp on the comment entry is accurate.
]]>I was just on Facebook, and apparently this is the new message the Facebook CEO is giving. They're postponing the changes to the TOS. Below is the message, taken directly from my Facebook...
"Terms of Use Update
A couple of weeks ago, we posted an update to our Terms of Use that we hoped would clarify some parts of it for our users. Over the past couple of days, we have received a lot of questions and comments about these updated terms and what they mean for people and their information. Because of the feedback we received, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.:
]]>Basically.. it still says the same.. and the part of where once i deactivate the profile facebook will have no rights to the content but will keep an archive is still the same
"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. 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."
]]>I'm going over the Terms and conditions again in facebook, related to my account.. and surprise surprise.. Last reviewed is September 23 2008 and the rules are still the same..
]]>ok so there goes my Political Career, I'll just say I never inhaled... and that wasn't me :)
]]>I just got on Facebook and thought it was safe to use
Also fun.
Don't think it is right you could use the information everyone put on FaceBook..
The logic behind Facebook being able to do this is based in contract law. When you first signed up for Facebook, you agreed to the TOS, which includes the clause about the TOS being subject to change at any time. By agreeing to this and continuing to use the service, you're in effect creating a basis for acceptance of contract modifications that allow for your silence to be binding. Your continued use of Facebook creates the offer, acceptance, and consideration needed to form a contract. Silence is considered an acceptance if it can be shown that in the past silence was considered acceptance by both parties. Your past continued use after TOS (contract) modifications establishes this silent acceptance requirement, therefore Facebook has a new valid contract every time they change their TOS if you log on and use the service after the new TOS take effect.
As for the notice, they explicitly state in their TOS that they will notify you either through email, their main website, or message that the new TOS have taken effect. There's your notice. Which is why I de-activated my account yesterday and cut my losses.
]]>I never saw anything telling me they changed it, or that I could agree or disgree.. not even a notice that it changed at all. I found out much later through an entirely different website comment. It sounds sneaky to me - and that's disturbing. "Lets just quietly alter this so that no one knows but they are technically agreeing anyway" Not cool at all. Not professional at all. I will remove whatever p hotos I have up there now regardless, and may stop using their site altogether because I dislike how they run their business.
]]>Interesting. Doesn't sound to me like they can get around copyright laws nor does it sound like it can get around image rights laws. Just don't be stupid enough to post something you don't ever want to see again and make it clear to others to ask your permission first if they intend to do something like that of you. Let them use some famous persons image or comments and see how fast they end up in court over it. TOS doesn't erase established law.
]]>Honestly, if they'd simply made it an opt-out situation:
1) Grant permission to use images
2) Don't grant permission to use images (except in cases of missing person, homicide, etc.)
I know tons of people who would happily give up their rights if it meant that they'd live forever on the internet. No regrets. I'm sure that their content would be more interesting also. Why not that at least?
]]>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.
]]>A Canadian model poster her image on Facebook. On an assignment, she was murdered in China. Now Facebook is "licensing" her image for use in news reports.
]]>bha
]]>I find it hard to believe that Facebook could claim ownership of an image that the person who posted it did not have in the first place.
I removed all of my information last Friday because I read about how Facebook is censoring conservatives. I did not know of the TOS change. I have written to the BOZOS that run Facebook, but I have received no response and I guess I don't expect to.
I wonder what Facebook will do when they use a stolen image of a minor child in an advertisement and the parent or guardian hires a lawyer and sues. I do not believe they can produce a model release from the parent or guardian of that minor child.
I have encouraged all my friends to stay away from Facebook.
I hope this will result in a Federal Law limiting such activity. If the Feds are so hell bent on protecting the copyright of gangsta rappers...why not the voting taxpaying citizens of this country.
]]>Remember people....ITS THE GODDAMN INTERNET!!!! At least facebook is giving you the forewarning that they may or may not use the shit you put up
]]>dear friend reaching my profile,
please bear in mind what is going on through FB, what power you are granting to this network.
caro amico che hai raggiunto il mio profilo, ti prego di notare come sono cambiate le regole di policy di Facebook: non scrivere o condividere nulla di cui potrai pentirti nel futuro. Sembra una stupidaggine, ma il futuro può essere incerto...
:)
]]>But there is a *HUGE PROBLEM* in the other part: "(b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose...".
The problem is in part b) IT *DOES* *NOT* *MENTION* UPLOADED MATERIALS!! It talks about a generic "your image", name and likeness. So if you subscribe to FB, they may use
*ANY* image of you, any part of your "likeness". Not only what you have uploaded and given consent to.
So if you are a celebrity, like a model, or a rock band artist, the may shoot photos of you on the road and use them as advertising material FOR FREE, WITHOUT even ASKING YOU. Even if that picture has nothing to do with Facebook or was never uploaded to Facebook. I don't think this was made on porpoise, the lawyers just missed a bit somewhere. But it should be corrected soon.
]]>http://www.albumoftheday.com/facebook/
The whole site just needs to back down with the amount of information posted etc... Watch the video link above and see for yourself the connection between the american government and the facebook site.
Can also be seen on youtube:
]]>If they ever change the TOS back, I will join Facebook. Other wise, I am not so dumb as to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. What surprises me is the number of people who would buy the Brooklyn Bridge!
The boiler plate disclaimer saying, "We don't assume ownership," is real bull. If that were true, why not say it explicitly in the T&C? Why not say, "You grant us the right to transmit your images for as long as you have an account with us"???
FB T&C's are technically illegal, but nobody is going to do anything. Example. If you buy a senior pic from your school photographer, you shouldn't be posting it to Facebook because you don't have the right to transfer copyright to FB, as their T/C's effectively ask for - only the photographer has that right because he/she is the copyright holder. If someone copies that image and makes a very popular poster with it, you could be liable because you violated your implicit agreement with the photographer to only use the image for personal use. See?
]]>The way that i understand it is that if Facebook ever makes a commercial or something like that they do have the rights to add a funny comment that you sent a friend, a funny pic that you uploaded. The reason they write it like that is so if they do use your stuff that they dont have to pay you for its use. I highly doubt they would do anything else with it! Think of LAVALIFE, they have done it, and I have never heard of anyone complaining like this! If you read the TOS before you added yourself to Facebook, you wouldnt be on this blog, let alone, have a Facebook profile!
]]>IANAL.
]]>I guess the mantra to remember in the Information Age is: "Whatever happens on the Internet stays on the Internet... Forever."
]]>Well as far as I'm concerned this is not subject to me. I've read over and over the terms of use. No where in the terms of use does it state that the terms of use are subject to change. I did not agree to the "new" terms of use only to the "terms of use" when I signed up. If they send out an e-mail or message alerting to the new terms and conditions I wouldn't have a prolbem but they didn't. I'm seriously think about taking leahal action
]]>Double check your privacy settings and ensure you have them only as you wish to grant access and ensure your kids or other family members and friends are aware of this so as to enable them to decide for themselves.
]]>The poor proles NEVER actually need to know anything. >_>
Screw you very much, Facebook.
I don't think many Facebook users really care -unless an article like this tries to scare them into caring. It's really a non-issue, they're just trying to cover their behinds.
]]>@AllenK:
Sorry for reposting the previous poster's question.
]]>I said I would never have Facebook or MySpace,but I joined Facebook about a year or so ago. I've been wanting to quit F.B.,and this might convince me to do it.
Is this a record # of views for Consumerist?
]]>JR
]]>Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service
We may terminate your account on the Facebook Service, delete your profile and any User Content you have Posted on or through the Facebook Service, and/or prohibit you from using or accessing the Facebook Service (or any portion thereof) for any or no reason, at any time in our sole discretion, with or without notice. Further, we reserve the right to change any aspect or feature of the Facebook Service at any time without notice. The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: Prohibited Conduct, User Content, Your Privacy Practices, Gift Credits, Ownership; Proprietary Rights, Licenses, Submissions, User Disputes; Complaints, Indemnity, General Disclaimers, Limitation on Liability, Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service, Arbitration, Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction and Other.
I don't see *anything* close to what this article is quoting in the entire TOS.
First, the Terms of Service state that they are subject to change without notice, which means that Facebook can basically impose any rules it wants.
"But i deleted my account before they made these changes, so they don't apply to me. Correct?"
This is an example of how the law is not absolute, but a question of how solid a legal standing someone has. Consider this example: Facebook decides to licence content you posted on your profile before you deleted it (which you did before the ToS changed). If you sent Facebook an email, say, demanding they stop using your content, chances are (assuming they replied in the first place) you would get a vaguely-worded reply stating that per the ToS, Facebook retains rights to your content. However, if your demand was sent to Facebook by an attorney in the form of a cease and desist letter, you would have a better chance of getting them to actually stop using your content.
i am very interested in seeing a matter like this go to trial, because these things still exist in a sort of legal grey area. Can a company get away legally with using a ToS that can change without notice, granting them rights even after a contract is terminated? As far as i know, Facebook can get away with this simply because no legal precedent exists yet.
]]>By using or accessing the Facebook Service, you represent, warrant and agree that you will not Post:
* User Content that violates the law or anyone's rights, including intellectual property ("IP") rights or other proprietary rights (such as rights of publicity and privacy);
so lets say you upload a copyrighted image that's not yours, facebook then in turn decides to use it for whatever they please and then copyright owner files suit against facebook, you're the one who's screwed, not facebook.
]]>@Meiran:
This is the same concern I have. I'm a member of a sketch comedy group, working to build a profitable enterprise. We routinely film videos and post them to our own website, but in order to gain exposure, we allow people to link to and share these videos with others - now the mere act of including a "share this" link grants facebook rights to our work, even if we don't post it there ourselves? What if a network subsequently wishes to purchase distribution rights to one of our videos? (which has happened before) Does facebook now have grounds to sue us for the sale of their intellectual property, even though we're the creators and copyright holders? To what extent does this place facebook in a position to benefit from our work?
]]>But I agree with your statement that anyone who puts data out there and thinks it's totally secure is naive.
]]>I would also like to know this.I've had pictures passed along and uploaded without even being asked for permission.
]]>However, query, whether we all have constructive notice given that we know of the change and continue to use the service.
]]>@Ubik2501: I agree wholeheartedly. ;)
I mainly posted that because I'm a vindictive asshole, and the author of that bullshit blog post pissed me off to no end. Not because he's railing on the Consumerist or its writers. I'm sure they can handle themselves. No, it's because he's a hypocritical twit who appears to have invented three-quarters of his issue with Chris in order to justify wagging his finger at him like a self-important ass. I was hoping that you fine folks might be moved to go over there and educate him on why he's such a useless twit. I'd do it, but I'm not quite as articulate or intelligent as you guys. ;)
]]>Even so, I would proceed with caution.
]]>everyone is watching everything. haven't you seen eagle eye yet?
]]>@OrtensiaCadmium: No, actually it doesn't.
"Actually, they can't sell your personal pictures to companies and make money off them. Moral rights protection in international conventions like Berne and the TRIPs agreement protect your image or something that you hold copyright in (your pictures fall within this category) from being used in a manner that is "prejudicial to the author". The USA and Canada have both signed on to and ratified these treaties, so don't expect to see your face advertising Diet Coke anytime soon. Sorry folks."
via PlainolJane's tumblr
]]>Excerpt:
(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
Which means you give them permission to digitally manipulate the image pixel by pixel, layer by layer, etc to remove perceived tagging, watermarking, etc.
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 or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) 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.
]]>Dunno if this is worthwhile reading, in that he spends most of the time raking Chris over the coals rather than making any real points of value that I could find, but eh, I thought I'd post it here anyway just to give the other side of the discussion its voice.
]]>So basically you agreed to the original TOS and any and all revisions that may ever be made to them.
]]>I wouldn't be surprised if the owners of Facebook basically have no clue what, exactly and precisely, their TOS demands.
US laws regarding privacy and Intellectual Property are giant, steaming mountain of donkey shit.
]]>doesn't that mean if you mark things for only friends to see they are bound to respect that since its the premise you uploaded it under? They can't trick you into believing only your friends will see it then sell it for the world to see.
]]>This also means if facebook wants to sell information pertaining to your age, location, name, image, bio, phone number, email, they can. It makes me wonder what evil twitter can be used for.
]]>This is good. All we should well know the rules of this 'fb' game. Most people use it everyday.
]]>As for individual user photos and the like, I thought that if you deleted a photo it would no longer show up in your contacts' update lists or other locations because the original image has been removed. If that's the case, can't you delete your photos, etc. BEFORE you terminate your Facebook account?
]]>Apologies in advance for this post it really is relevant to anyone tired of privacy issues.
I am a privacy advocate and entrepreneur. In mid 2006 I recognized the need for a web service that would extend property rights to consumer's data. To do these consumers needed to control their privacy and own their data. This forum is too small to go into the details, but we created a social enterprise that allows consumers to control and profit from their data - we then allow the consumer to make the beneficiary of their earnings a nonprofit. In this way we allow for ad funded donations to charities. This is of course free to consumers and the nonprofits we hope to help through creation of a philanthropic web.
To learn more see our FAQ on www.kindclicks.com or our (admittedly slow) videos on Youtube. (search KindClicks). Please join us and change the world.
]]>What no press release? LOL - I wonder if the etrust rubber stamp FB paid for will now be revoked. Just how many times does FB think they can continue to treat privacy as a disposable commodity?
Do not get mad - get even - take control.
My friends and I created a social enterprise web service called KindClicks where your information is your business â„¢ . Literally - we help consumers secure privacy and profit (cash) from their online presence. Think of it a no BS gen 4 infomediary that benefits you and a cause. (Via KindClicks AdGive â„¢ technology)
Help yourself. Help the world.
If you're on FB - join us as well at [www.facebook.com]
]]>BALLS TO THAT. I distribute my music for free, but I expect to be informed and credited should it ever be used by another party.
]]>Well, at least I can comment with my facebook account.
I heard somewhere that most TOS (at least here in Canada) are invalid due to contract laws. I signed up to facebook back when it was university only; I get the feeling that they can't just change the terms of the contract (because the TOS is a contract) without notifying me, and ratifying it with me. The presumption that they 'can' seems alright, the presumption that it is legally binding seems very not alright.
@Blueskylaw:
Well, if you ever open a restaurant featuring your grilled cheese...
"...including by offering a Share Link on your website..."
]]>The section of the ToS you quoted refers to you not having the right to use Facebook's materials. The only right you have for reproduction, etc. is with your user content--or application if you created one.
]]>THIS IS NOT NEW.
]]>Take, for instance, the picture of me vomiting into the wastebasket after doing a keg stand at my friend's party. Are you telling me that Facebook can now make a boatload of cash licensing that picture for use in a high fashion / hot couture periodical. For shame! I was wearing my "good" t-shirt that night too. People often tell me I could be a model (mostly family) and I couldn't sleep at night knowing that my image was being licensed for the personal gain of anyone but me.
I also should be able to decide when and how my image and that of my related vomit chunks are displayed. After all that picture was my own flesh and blood - well mostly nachos actually and a little bit of blood, definitely flesh though- both mine and Jenny's, who was passed out in the bathtub next to me with part of her nipple showing. Also the suburban white-boy gang sign I'm flashing in the picture is considered something of a personal trademark of mine, which shouldn't be diluted by by the corporate media to sell soda or Doritos.
My point is, as the model / artist, I should be the one to profit off of the (considerable) investment made in the preparation for the puking that evening, including the 3 dominos pizzas, 8 shots of Cuervo, and 1/4 of a keg of PBR (technically 1/3 of a keg since Frank hasn't paid up yet due to still being in a coma).
I've often feared that some shyster would get rich by publishing a hardcover anthology my clever status updates, but I never thought it would come it this!
Of course I will eat my words when facebook sells it's files to the CIA. That'd be something to see.
]]>If I publish something and I retain rights to it, and I want to put it online so people can read it without buying a magazine/book/ebook or whatever, or an excerpt of it, would I have to make my own website to protect it? Would my copyright on my own published material protect me? Would the company that is hosting my site then have rights to it even though I hold the copyright?
Aaaah!
]]>Worldwide? But this kind of contract is not applicable in all countries. There are countries where you are allowed to revoke use of copyrighted content whenever you want (if you are the copyright holder). And this right is granted by law. Which means that the TOS has no value in front of it. They are touching non "compatible" parts of copyright laws, I wonder what is their plan about filtering content by country now. Soon to appear maybe "this content is not available in your country" when you want to see photos from your friends. So fun... or not.
]]>@Ilovemygeek: That sounds like a great idea. I wonder if they could catch trouble trying to remove your watermakrs, which I don't doubt they'd do. Then again, they may just ignore your stuff for non-watermarked stuff. Hmn.
]]>They are stupid and sooner or later this will be tested in court.
Especially the clause "we can change these terms at any time to anything". It's ridiculous and the everybody thinks so.
]]>@Kevin Hotaling: Please feel free to explain how you came to the conclusion you did.
]]>I'm pleased that someone else understands the purpose of such broad terms! It's a major "ass covering" technique to shield them from anything and everything, most likely as advised by the world's most expensive lawyers.
]]>I'm pleased that someone else understands the purpose of such broad terms! It's a major "ass covering" technique to shield them from anything and everything, most likely as advised by the world's most expensive lawyers.
]]>Ownership; Proprietary Rights
Except for User Content and Applications/Connect Sites, all materials, content and trademarks on the Facebook Service are the property of Facebook and/or its licensors and are protected by all relevant IP laws and other proprietary rights (including copyright, trademark, trade dress and patent laws) and any other applicable laws. Without limiting the foregoing, FACEBOOK, the F LOGO, FB, FACE, POKE, THE WALL and 32665 and all related logos, are trademarks of Facebook. Except as expressly authorized by Facebook in writing, you agree not to use, sell, license, distribute, copy, publish, stream, publicly perform or display, transmit, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works or otherwise make unauthorized use of the materials, content or trademarks.
Wouldn't this "Except for User Content" protect my images?
It just means that they can use it yet you till own it?
Yes, I realize this facebook case is more legally slanted in its intentions, but regardless -- don't upload stuff *anywhere* that you don't want to be there forever. Always been that way.
]]>Why can't we as consumers, create our own Terms of Service? Something akin to
"By allowing me to use your service, you agree that these terms I lay forth supersede any Terms of Service posted in regards to this service, in perpetuity, irrevocably. I reserve the right to deny the service's attempts to 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 content, data, information or analytics related to my use of the service.
Also, verily fuck all y'all."
It strikes me as a similar thing to those gravel trucks that say "Not responsible for broken windshields." Why can't I have a sign that says "Yes, you fucking are."
]]>@TrevorPot:
I think that's why they say the contract's not goverend by European laws, and choose an arbitrator in Santa Clara, CA, instead.
That's reasonable and convenient and totally non-biased, right?
I suspect this is just the lawyers tripping over themselves trying to handle one case, and forgetting about others. For instance, what if something you created happens to end up in a Facebook TV ad (it could just be a screen shot with your face), and then you delete your account. Do they need to call up the networks and tell them to pull the SuperBowl ad?
That said, I agree with the others. If you post it, it's public. Don't count on anything else. What the ToS says, what the software attempts to do, it's all moot if someone decides to be malicious. You're at far greater risk of being outed by one of your (ex-)friends than by FaceBook deliberately doing anything.
]]>And Consumerist's enlightened non-grabby policy? It says the same damn thing... FAIL
From Section V:
Except as otherwise set forth in this User Agreement, by transmitting any public Communication to the Site, you grant Consumer Media an irrevocable, non-exclusive, worldwide, perpetual, unrestricted, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, reproduce, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, modify, edit, create derivative works from, incorporate into one or more compilations and reproduce and distribute such compilations, and otherwise exploit such Communications, in all media now known or later developed. You warrant that you have the right to grant these rights to Consumer Media and that you will not post any content that infringes or violates any proprietary, privacy or publicity, or other rights of any party or that violates any law. You hereby waive all rights generally known as "moral rights" in your Communications to the extent they can be waived, under any existing or future law of any jurisdiction.
]]>FACEBOOK IS MADE OUT OF PEOPLE!!!
]]>You are aware that the Consumerist isn't planning to share any of the revenue from your hilariously naive comment, right?
]]>@Rob Weddle: Seriously, it's best to think that since the Internet Wayback Machine is out there. If you think you could be embaressed by something in the future, just don't post it. It's better for you.
]]>Bob
]]>The only refutation I can see to this is that the terms are "substantially similar to" or a "variation of" the original, not a completely new condition - but I can't imagine that such a thing is recognised in law...
(Not that I'd have noticed if they'd had this in there when I signed up anyway, but there you go.)
]]>Since I'm sure they backup their content, should the authorities (or anyone) ever be looking for information on a suspect/predator/you they could get a warrant or court order and acquire content from all sources which could be used to implicate you, etc.
So bottom line, don`t do stoopid stuff and post it on public places or places that have these types of TOS. Most TOS also say that "they may change from time to time" and that you abide and agree with all the terms. Some don`t even let you know that the TOS has changed, so the onus is up to you to keep on top of any changes.
QUACK!
]]>I later discovered that Yahoo! sells subscriptions or feeds of their questions/answers when I saw myself on some education website message board that I never signed up for. This message board (on a guy's page selling sketchy products/services I'd never endorse as an educator) made it look like there was an active community of people discussing educational questions.
In whichever fashion this guy was receiving the feed, the information was able to be morphed into looking like a message board. (Each member had a profile page, and each thing you wrote in Yahoo! Answers looked like a post to different threads within this board.) Now, my educational advice may or may not have value on its surface, but the apparent activity on this message board sure gave more credibility to this huckster's crappy educational products. After all, he had a whole network of people who joined his site! His products must be good!
So, if you're not sure how your data could be sub-licensed or used for profit, that's just the thing - you don't know.
]]>That sounds like it means that your privacy settings will be honoured. So if you have your pictures set to only be viewed by friends, they need to respect that.
]]>@Darren Forster: A person in public has no expectation of privacy and noncommercial use can generally be done without permission, even if taken on private property. While a former mobster might put out a hit on you, he won't be able to sue you successfully for damages.
See all the flack that rose around the 2007 Tufts Naked Quad Run. All the students claimed they were on private property and didn't give permission for a newspaper to run a video (taken from behind). The paper laughed.
IANAL.
]]>I closed my account with them over a week ago because I felt unsafe having so much information up there. I only opened it in the first place because my class required it freshman year.
]]>I for one think they can do this; if there is child content (your children) that you do not allow the world to see but only share with family and friends, they can violate a minor's rights.
]]>Facebook needs to get a clue. Content ownership is a tricky subject and asking people to turn over part of their ownership to a for-profit company to make profit off of your content is not only stupid, it's insane. If they make a profit from your content, they need to share the wealth with you as it is your content that allowed them to prosper.
]]>thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention.
-b
]]>Maybe lots of people have their whole account open to the world; I don't, so I guess as long as that phrase holds true I'm not too bothered by the change.
]]>win
]]>"Facebook Principles
We built Facebook to make it easy to share information with your friends and people around you. We understand you may not want everyone in the world to have the information you share on Facebook; that is why we give you control of your information...
Facebook follows two core principles:
1. You should have control over your personal information..."
]]>This also extends toward company facebook apps. The only way they can SELL information about who's using the app, for how long, etc. is by ensuring (on their end) that you won't sue once they hand it over to the company.
It doesn't make it "less evil". It stinks that everything on the internet has to be so marketed, but people have to make money some how.
]]>To think I almost broke down and finally started an account with them the other day. I guess anyone who wants to know something about "Mr. Gunn" will just have to google me.
]]>I guess that has changed now.
Assuming you deactivated your account before the TOS change, then one would assume that your content would be removed and licenses expire as per the TOS at time of deactivation.
]]>So if you turn around and use YOUR OWN work after posting it to Facebook, they could, in theory, sue you for violating their intellectual property rights.
]]>@Rob Weddle: I prefer to think of it as "If it's available in digital format anywhere, it's probabaly going to be online eventually".
If you don't want it ciculating online, make sure to never have it made into any sort of digital format.
Kind of like that internet rule that's something like "If you can think it, it exists online somewhere."
]]>Our response is going to be to frame facebook for the 'birdnapping' at http://birdnapped.com
]]>Say what you will about whether people should have trusted FB to begin with - that is not the point. They started out user friendly to build a user base and now that they dominate professional age social networking they pull this crap. I say professional age because that's the most profitable demographic to exploit.
]]>Don't these two sentences contradict each other?
]]>@silver-bolt: The second part was the old TOS-since removed.
]]>And if we post anything in notes, they could sell it without us knowing or without our permission. What if we sell something that we originally put on facebook, can they sue us?
]]>I was wondering who was stealing my greenery at night.
Thanks for the tip-off.
So I should stop posting all of my funny jokes and recipes for grilled cheese?
]]>Does this only refer to the "share on facebook" links, or does it refer to rss feeds as well, since anyone can import a feed into their FB account?
If rss feeds count, then doesn't that mean FB pretty much copyrighted most of the internet? :-p
]]>Seriously. Sounds like that's what they are after here.
]]>Facebook should now be called The Information Blackhole, what goes in *never* comes out. Be careful what you huck in there.
]]>...and this is why a really want to live in europe :)
AND they let me post this here straight from the site!
@snowmoon:
]]>I didn't post it publicly.
]]>And as a photographer, I am constantly warning other photographers, since I find that most don't take the time to read the ToS.
Thanks for this post. I am going to post a link to it as my Status Update, and I encourage everyone else to do the same to help get the word out to all FaceBook users.
]]>This is why I'm glad that Blizzard makes me re-agree to their TOS and End User agreement every time they change the game even slightly.
]]>Sure, I probably wasn't going to sell most of them. But if I did want to, I wouldn't want to run into this crap.
]]>One thing I know is this: A lot of high powered people with access to a lot of high powered attorneys used Facebook. Maybe we'll get lucky and one will mount a legal challenge to get this ridiculous clause shot down.
I'm thankful I don't post jack to facebook.
]]>Friends don't post pictures of friends to Facebook.
]]>Either you re-read the agreement every four hours or hire an attorney to do it for you. AMERICA!
]]>For Akamai to distribute that content, they have to be granted a license to distribute it, the same as the license you gave Facebook to distribute it. Hence, the license you grant Facebook has to be sublicensable.
]]>Uhhh... and the intention of its founders was purely altruistic? I'm sure they never planned to make a dime off of the service.
But if you were being sarcastic; well, you kind of failed at that.
]]>Yes comrade! We must rise up against the evil ToS and rebel! Rebel! We will fight them on the beaches! We will fight them in the servers!
Or, y'know, maybe they just wanna use our pics for some goofy promotional material (a la MySpace's frontpage) and don't give a piss for anything else?
]]>"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."
Caompare that to
"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 or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) 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."
With picasa they are using those, limited, grants to run the service. With facebook you are granting ALL rights in perpetuity including using your name and likeness for commercial advertising. They could sell your pictures into a stock service, create new works based on your images, and plaster your images on advertising and you would have no recourse.
]]>Before they would have required your permission to use you likeness on a billboard in times square, the new license allows them to do that without paying you a dime now.
They can sell the images to a third party ( sub license ) as well as profit from using them in a stock photo service if they wished.
]]>11.1 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.
and
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.
Doesn't sound so different at all, now does it?
]]>Just because a company claims the right to change a contract however it sees fit doesn't mean that the changes are legally unchallengeable. For example, if, instead of the loathsome passages you quoted, Facebook inserted a clause stating that logging on to the service gives it an irrevocable and perpetual right to come to your house and excavate your shrubberies, I doubt that it would be upheld in court. Does their new TOS cross the "shrubbery line"? I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
]]>I use it regularly, but Facebook still isn't a necessity of life. Your little "25 things" surveys, or the drunken pictures that you took at Johnny's rad party hardly count as intellectual property worth "respecting." Facebook has always claimed the right to retain any information you post. Just like most sites on the internet. Now you just consent that they can do whatever they want with it.
It sucks that there is no opt out clause or anything, but in reality you should never expect that something you intentionally post on a publicly accessible site will ever be private.
]]>"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, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf."
I know where I'll be uploading my images from now on.
]]>Also in the ToS: "You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses."
So, if you did that, then you (if you wanted to be a real stickler to the ToS), couldn't upload them and/or Facebook could delete them. Either way, it wouldn't be on Facebook, which would kind of defeat the purpose.
]]>Write up a contract assigning copyright on any and all content you're about to upload to facebook to someone you trust on an exclusive basis.
Then, since you don't have title to the works, you can't pass those rights along to facebook. Easy smeezy.
]]>This is why I never joined Facebook and now I never will.
]]>...however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
I interpret that as Facebook still being able to keep copies of all your content. As far as I know, they've always claimed that right, but never had the selling, publishing, etc. wording in there.
]]>How does this effect people who do not even have an account and someone else posts their picture. My picture has been posted by a few friends and relatives and I really don't care but some people might.
]]>It comes as a shock to all too many people that (in general) anything you put out there will stay out there. It boggles my mind that people willingly want to post incriminating, embarrassing, and unflattering things to Facebook, in full, public view.
It's just like those "we reserve the right to do whatever we want with whatever you send us" disclaimers that magazines, etc. have. If you freely send them your most intimate life details, don't be surprised when they claim the rights to them!
]]>"Terms of Use
Date of Last Revision: February 4, 2009.
Welcome to the Facebook Service, a social utility that connects you with the people around you. The Facebook Service (defined below) is operated by Facebook, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates ("us," "we" or "Facebook"). By using or accessing the Facebook Service, you agree that you have read, understand and are bound by these Terms of Use ("Terms"). We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change or delete portions of these Terms at any time without further notice. Your continued use of the Facebook Service after any such changes constitutes your acceptance of the new Terms."
]]>I don't think so. I'm in the process of removing anything that I don't want to loose rights to and I will not be uploading any more.
]]>(I personnaly don't think Facebook is spying on any of us, seeing how many users they have, it seems impossible they can pin-point one specific user, but I like to think I have a choice somewhere)
]]>I canceled my account close to two years ago how does this apply to me since I canceled my account way before this was in effect? I haven't reactivated my account therefore I haven't renewed my contract with them to this new TOS therefore they are bound by the old TOS so I presume legally I could still ask them to delete all content and they would have to comply.
]]>Those two sections were contradictory in the first place. How can a irrevocable forever license expire?
]]>I think a good rule of thumb is to just presume that anything you put on the internet is out there forever
I'm a bit more cautious, and just presume that anything anybody puts on the internet is out there forever.
I know I'm not the only person who has photographed me nekkid
]]>@Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier: thats what i wanna know... doesn't seem too legal
]]>biggest inverse relationship EVER
]]>While it gives Facebook some far-reaching and scary possibilities, the basic idea is that things you upload may end up residing on servers outside of Facebook's direct control. These broad rights make it so that you can't sue Facebook for some cached content on some other server, but yes, it also means they can sell your photos or use them in advertising with no recompense to you.
]]>