var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
metsarethe...
February 15, 2009 11:21 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

License to use your photos against you when you run for office in 20 years

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Blueskylaw
February 16, 2009 3:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@metsarethe...:

So I should stop posting all of my funny jokes and recipes for grilled cheese?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nemesiscw
February 16, 2009 5:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Blueskylaw:
Well, if you ever open a restaurant featuring your grilled cheese...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Telekinesis123
February 16, 2009 3:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@metsarethe...:

Facebook should now be called The Information Blackhole, what goes in *never* comes out. Be careful what you huck in there.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 15, 2009 11:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

That's fairly common language in terms for various sites such as Facebook.

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.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
narq
February 16, 2009 7:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OrtensiaCadmium: It's not common language to claim ownership, rights, and use to edit, display, and perform any content they see fit. That means if you post a bio with a picture of yourself they have the right to edit that photo and your bio to say you're a drug dealing terrorist from Ugoslavia here illegally and you're looking for gay buddies. Thats what it sounds like to me.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kikiembryonic
February 16, 2009 8:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@narq:

@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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 4:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OrtensiaCadmium: @kikiembryonic: But can they license of photograph you posted in any way? Say you're a photographer and you post some of your images to show friends, do you lose ownership of these photos?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mason Gray
February 19, 2009 3:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@QuincyPython:


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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 19, 2009 11:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kikiembryonic: @Mason Gray:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 2:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kikiembryonic: Hm, is that the same USA who have also signed the Geneva Conventions and other international treaties? A recent president has made it a point that all treaties are subject to very unconventional interpretations.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OrtensiaCadmium:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 3:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@OrtensiaCadmium:

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Rob Weddle
February 15, 2009 11:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think a good rule of thumb is to just presume that anything you put on the internet is out there forever and ever regardless if you want it there or not. Follow that logic, and no TOS will catch you off guard.

Reply
12 replies
\"user-pic\"
Brunette Bookworm
February 16, 2009 2:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
February 16, 2009 6:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rob Weddle: This is about ownership, not privacy. Yes, people can steal and re-post your stuff on the Internets; that is different than \"Oh, you posted on our site? Sorry, WE own it now, mwahahahaha.\"

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kevin Hotaling
February 16, 2009 2:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LandruBek: You never joined Facebook for fear that they wouldn't share the profits after turning your pictures into a coffee table book?

You are aware that the Consumerist isn't planning to share any of the revenue from your hilariously naive comment, right?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
February 16, 2009 3:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kevin Hotaling: Please feel free to explain how you came to the conclusion you did.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
February 16, 2009 8:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: False. The TOS, as it stands now, means you grant a non-exclusive license. They can't sue you if you or someone else uses your image. Even then, I don't believe granting someone an exclusive license means you can't use it, but that you can't give someone else that same right/license.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
William Brian MacLean
February 22, 2009 8:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: Exclusive means *exclusive*, not *exclusive except for*. You can use the work in your portfolio or other self-promotion, but you - as a professional entity - cannot use that work to make money.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Michael L. Lujan
March 7, 2009 5:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@William Brian MacLean: From the TOS: \"You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license...\" I'm really not sure what you're talking about.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Kogenta
February 16, 2009 6:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LandruBek
February 16, 2009 12:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rob Weddle: That's a good rule of thumb: that if something is on the internet, it is not private anymore. But I think Facebook's actions could indeed catch someone off guard---because now they as-good-as-own your data. So now they can print and sell posters of the pictures you took, turn your posts into advertising jingles, whatever. Make a million bucks, and keep it all. Imagine a fun line of Facebook postcards, or a coffee table book, \"The Faces of Facebook.\" They can do this, and Facebook members themselves won't see a dime, because they gave away a license to do so.

This is why I never joined Facebook and now I never will.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mary
February 16, 2009 2:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LandruBek: That's my problem with it. As a photographer, I don't really consider this an acceptable TOS. I know it won't do me any good now, but I'll be deleting most of my pictures from facebook tonight, and will stop using it to share photos even though it was the best way for me to pass around my newest stuff.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mattwiggins
February 16, 2009 11:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Hands
February 16, 2009 1:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Meiran: That's why Al Gore invented watermarks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
compuguy1088
February 16, 2009 4:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Meiran: Agreed, this is why I have hesitated in posting a lot of my photos on facebook...I like to actually have some control on my photos...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
February 15, 2009 11:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rob Weddle: Exactly -- I'm not sure I understand why anyone would think otherwise.

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!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 11:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Its not just postings that are \"incriminating, embarrassing, and unflattering things to Facebook, in full, public view\" as you stated...but what about artistic images posted for friends and family to view. What about our rights to own our own photography and such?? What about the fact that anything we say and do is \"owned\" by them. Facebook has no right to take ownership of us - it needs to go back to what it started as...a site to connect with others.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
michaellamb
February 16, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: if so, then they send contradictory messages. You can't view profiles unless you are granted permission, right? So be default most people think they are only allowing their approved network to see this, not all of facebook and all of the world etc. They are not sending FB Inc. information. This is the ownership of my own personal user content question again.

But I agree with your statement that anyone who puts data out there and thinks it's totally secure is naive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
discounteggroll
February 15, 2009 11:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Rob Weddle:

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
discounteggroll
February 15, 2009 11:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

facebook user privacy and bank account funds of lawyers representing facebook.

biggest inverse relationship EVER

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier
February 15, 2009 11:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What if I created my Facebook account before they changed their TOS...
They've never asked me to agree to this new TOS, how can this be valid?

Reply
10 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

When you signed up you agreed to the original TOS which included the clause: \"We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change, modify, add, or delete portions of these Terms of Use at any time without further notice.\"

So basically you agreed to the original TOS and any and all revisions that may ever be made to them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MikeGrenade
February 16, 2009 1:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good Christ this shit is retarded.

Either you re-read the agreement every four hours or hire an attorney to do it for you. AMERICA!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 2:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MikeGrenade: I think the logical impossibility of doing this would (or, morally, should) be grounds for a legal challenge to this \"contract\". Otherwise, you have granted them a license to impose any contract they like on you, without notice, which is surely not legally binding.

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.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 8:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SalisburyMalinky:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
February 16, 2009 2:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MikeGrenade: Articles like this are needed on consumerist. If enough words gets out about these sorts of things, maybe, just MAYBE things will change.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Tijil
February 15, 2009 11:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier:

\"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.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
huadpe
February 15, 2009 11:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Tijil: So if you haven't logged in since then, and when you log in the only thing you do is deactivate, you aren't bound by the change in contract.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|*
February 15, 2009 11:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier: i'm fairly sure that there was a clause when i first signed up stating that \"these terms are subject to change at any time without notification\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ZekeSulastin
February 15, 2009 11:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier: Seeing that you're continuing to use the service, you have tacitly agreed to their new TOS. Theoretically you could have argued that the change adversely affects you and thus get the stuff deleted, but it's been a while since the 4th.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier
February 15, 2009 11:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ZekeSulastin:
I understand but there was no mention what so ever on Facebook.
If they had warned me at least a week before changing their TOS, maybe I would have removed some pictures or changed some informations. Now it's useless to do so.

(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)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 18, 2009 4:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier:

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

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mary
February 16, 2009 2:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier: I agree, a change like this should have been advertised and another agreement made.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
magic8ball
February 16, 2009 6:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Meiran: iTunes does the same. Annoying, since I don't have any choice but to accept if I want to keep using the service, but still one degree less annoying than Facebook, which for all I know could be randomly changing the ToS every five minutes without ever notifying me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 5:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Meiran: I like when I just went to comment, it prompted me to log in to my facebook account.. Yeah, this totally sucks, I never intended to give them rights to sell or use my pic- Theyv'e already used the small writing that says they don't have to tell us, why wouldn't they sell our images/ info next?

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
silver-bolt
February 15, 2009 11:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual , non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license.
--
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.
--

Those two sections were contradictory in the first place. How can a irrevocable forever license expire?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Coles_Law
February 16, 2009 4:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@silver-bolt: The second part was the old TOS-since removed.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
joshua70448
February 16, 2009 5:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: He's making the point that the old TOS had two contradictory sections, and now the new one has eliminated one of them, clearing up the contradiction.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Telekinesis123
February 15, 2009 11:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Basically your Facebooks bitch, what a bunch of nice guys over there.

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
misokitty
February 16, 2009 3:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123: I had that same question, I canceled my account about a year ago, what does that mean for me?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 6:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@misokitty: I seem to recall that facebook kept your data for no longer than 2 years. and after that they would delete their archives.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
February 16, 2009 12:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Telekinesis123: It would seem to me that you're still bound by the old TOS:

...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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
February 15, 2009 11:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have no problems granting them license to distribute the work in connection with running the service, but this new license is obscene on it's face. Perpetual, unlimited, do-whatever-we-want, paid in full.

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.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Jimmy Miller
February 17, 2009 5:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@hallettoon: It's \"it's\" not \"its.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jjason82
February 16, 2009 1:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowmoon: You're already out of luck. These terms went into act on Feb. 4th, which has already passed. You can delete them from your profile, but anything you remove will still be archived on Facebook's servers and be available for them to do whatever you want with. It's too late.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jamar0303
February 16, 2009 4:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jjason82: And what if I haven't touched Facebook since January? Apparently, continuing to use Facebook constitutes acceptance, but since I haven't done so, if I tell them to remove my account right away will I be bound to the new terms?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
jjason82
February 16, 2009 1:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jjason82: Excuse me. Whatever THEY want with.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
February 16, 2009 1:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jjason82: I would like to see them try to uphold that in court if they try. Images were uploaded under the old terms and the new terms are a significant material change. No considerations were tendered for the additional license so I doubt it would hold much water, but I'll be damned to give them any more material either.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
frodolives35
February 16, 2009 12:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Darren Forster
February 16, 2009 1:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@frodolives35: The onus is on the person who put the picture up on facebook to ask permission from everyone in the picture if their image can be posted to facebook, it is the same for any internet material. It is really important when putting up pictures of children and vulnerable people. In a worse case scenario imagine if you took a picture whilst shopping in town of yourself and in the background is a person who if they are identified are at risk and have had their identity changed and moved from the current location so they can't be found by the person. You then post that up on the internet stating that you were in such a town centre when that picture was taken. That person in the background could then do you for revealing their location without their permission. I do scouts and we have to be very careful to get permission from parents of all the children photographed and published on the internet, just in case anything like that did happen.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
February 16, 2009 2:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MikeWas
February 16, 2009 2:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@frodolives35: If it's a picture OF YOU then there's almost certainly no copyright claim. You may, depending on your state law, have a right to object to any commercial use of your likeness.

Friends don't post pictures of friends to Facebook.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
waza0
February 16, 2009 12:08 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

lol ... it sure can be scary

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Lucky225
February 16, 2009 12:10 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Awww FacistBook ;)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
f3rg
February 16, 2009 12:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

If Facebook wants to use my lame status updates for profit, I couldn't possible give less of a crap.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
istariblackmane
February 17, 2009 12:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@f3rg: I completely agree...if facebook wants my lame status updates they are more than welcome to it...its just really funny to see all these people that signed up for the service...most of which probably didn't even read the ToS to begin with....start bitching about it like this

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
cheviot
February 16, 2009 12:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

sigh. This is too easy.

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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Justin S. Johnson
February 16, 2009 12:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@cheviot:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MikeWas
February 16, 2009 2:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Justin S. Johnson: It's interesting to noodle out the consequences of breaching such a warranty. At a minimum, it would seem to expose the breaching party to the attorney's fees incurred by defending any copyright claim.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mythago
February 16, 2009 6:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MikeWas: Yeah, being impleaded by Facebook in a copyright suit? No fun.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
catastrophegirl chooses not to fly
February 16, 2009 12:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

yet another reason not to sign up for a facebook account. i haven't yet and every week i find another reason not to. now if i could just get my friends to stop entering my email to invite me because now i am getting all sorts of facebook spam emails, that go beyond the invites from my friends

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
March 5, 2009 2:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: Most of those facebook spam emails aren't actually connected to facebook at all. It's like assuming that Viagra's marketing campaign is entirely spam-based because of the contents of your junk folder. They're mostly just (vaguely) cleverly disguised virus delivery vehicles.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Patrick J Kubley
February 16, 2009 12:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Really? That sucks. I started a Facebook page recently to keep family and friends updated on what's going on with my newborn twin boys; but if I post any pics or whatnot of them Facebook can use them as they see fit in perpetuity? Weak. Time to start my own site instead and again remind myself to start reading TOS's more thoroughly.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Shawn McMichael
February 16, 2009 8:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Patrick J Kubley: Putting the content on an alternative site will not protect your pics, because it states that they can use any materiel you link to the same as if you posted it on their website directly.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dean Craig
February 16, 2009 9:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Shawn McMichael: if you post it someplace anyone anywhere can see anyway, then anyone anywhere can take it. if you don't want it taken, you will have to not post it, and if you don't want to be seen doing it, then don't do it in the first place.

everyone is watching everything. haven't you seen eagle eye yet?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
compuguy1088
February 16, 2009 4:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Patrick J Kubley: The solution to this problem is to have the photos on a separate hosting site (Flickr for example).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Plates
February 16, 2009 12:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Anyone who doesn't respect people's intellectual property can go to hell irrevocably and perpetually.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
February 16, 2009 12:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Plates: Even when you willingly and freely give it to someone else?

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 3:26 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: True. However, I should be able to retain the rights to materials, such as films, photography, artwork, if i myself am an professional media maker and am using the \"Networking\" function on a career oriented basis. If it was all just about stupid college photos, i agree these fools have earned their embarrassment. But the truth is employers are now asking for MySpace & Facebook sites on a regular basis and the TOS has trampled on my professional rights, without warning or reason, and an opt out clause would have been nice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
February 16, 2009 1:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: There is a huge difference from posting on some site that will retain the image and granting facebook a irrevocable and complete license to do whatever it wants... including commercial work, with your images.

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 8:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowmoon: Ahhh, finally someone on here who gets it! It is not the harvesting of my digital content or the fact that it is all ways going to be out there in the public, that I object to. It is the fact that they are going to try and profit from my intellectual property that really burns me up. It is mine, not theirs, and just because I want to show it to other people, doesn't mean I want to give all my rights away.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Plates
February 16, 2009 1:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: How many people actually read these user agreements anyway. They are written by scumbag lawyers to be understood only by other scumbag lawyers.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
D14BL0
February 16, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Plates: Are you serious? Are you saying that because people don't read the ToS that it isn't a legal and binding contract?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Sunny Yeung
February 16, 2009 12:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I post all my photos on a shared hosting account, and I've been getting nagged over not posting all my photos on Facebook. I feel a bit more vindicated because my hosting company doesn't pull that kind of **** on me.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
February 16, 2009 12:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Compare to google's picasa

\"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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
February 16, 2009 12:48 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowmoon: Not so fast there. From Picasa's TOS, section 11 (which overrides section 9):

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?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Brontide
February 16, 2009 1:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: First off you leave off the very important part of 11.1

\"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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Plates
February 16, 2009 3:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@snowmoon: I think Flickr is looking a lot lot better now.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ViperBorg
February 16, 2009 1:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Plates: I think uploading my pictures to my own damn server sounds freakin great.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Xanaxian
February 16, 2009 12:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
BrazDane
February 16, 2009 4:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xanaxian: Enter The Knights who say \"NI\" - that clause would be to protect Facebook employees from these grisly knights! :o)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Blueskylaw
February 16, 2009 3:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xanaxian:

I was wondering who was stealing my greenery at night.
Thanks for the tip-off.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
coreyander
February 16, 2009 3:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Xanaxian: Yes, but it will never go to court because of the whole mandatory arbitration thing, so I hope you weren't fond of those shrubs...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Amy Pospiech
February 16, 2009 12:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Facebook is becoming a profit machine. What used to be a fun way to stay in touch with fellow university students is now a massive, monetizing \"social network\" ... *shudder*

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
johnfrombrooklyn
February 16, 2009 1:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Amy Pospiech: If it's becoming a profit machine, it's not doing a very good job. Every time I log in, I see stupid ads that have no relevance to me.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Philthadelphian
February 16, 2009 1:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Amy Pospiech:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
DoktorGoku
February 16, 2009 2:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Philthadelphian: I think you're actually trying to cover your butt in the case she was being sarcastic. Your comment is trying to bash her no matter what her comment meant.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anto103
February 16, 2009 12:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Maybe if everyone started posting images that don't belong to them, will bring this TOS down. Or everybody just upload Goatse in protest that would probably sort it out.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Melaisis
February 16, 2009 1:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Anto103:

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?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
February 16, 2009 12:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Don't you have to \"re-agree\" to any changes they make to this? That's not fair!

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 3:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese: How long did they give people to decide if they wanted to keep using Facebook or agreeing to the new terms, or did they just change things and then tell you about it and you could discontinue use or renew which meant you agree to the changes. They should have given a period of time for people to decide on this instead of just going ahead with it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 7:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@CandaceLean:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
CMU_Bueller
February 16, 2009 1:03 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese: Yes you do, and continuing to use the service constitutes your re-agreement.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
scoosdad
February 16, 2009 1:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Good god, last week my cousin in England asked my 81 year old mother if she had a Facebook account yet so she could add her as a friend. My mother asked me, \"what is a Facebook and should I sign up?\" Give me a break, this is getting out of hand.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Lauren LK Kelsey
February 16, 2009 1:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Clarifying question: If I post a link to a YouTube video I made, does Facebook own that as well? I feel like it would fall under the \"Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service\" part, but I'm not %100 sure.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Derek Balling
February 16, 2009 1:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

First off, the license HAS to be sublicensable. Facebook, like nearly every content provider, uses Akamai to distribute content, including that picture of you-naked-with-the-howler-monkey (hey, I don't judge!).

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dix99
February 16, 2009 1:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just what you'd expect with the name 'Microsoft' attached to it. Don't they eventually screw all there partners & customers.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Christos Triftoudis
February 16, 2009 1:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hey Chris, just made a note with your comments on my FB account. Feel free to let me know if you think there is a better way to inform others.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Nakeva N. Corothers
February 16, 2009 2:01 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

DArn. Guess I better go make a YouTube video of the current status of Facebook TOS before it turns into more BS.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 2:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What am I missing? Subsection (a)(i) is \"subject only to your privacy settings,\" which I read as restricting FB's use of my photos, notes, posts, updates, etc. as being restricted to my Friends, since that's what my privacy settings are set for. Put aside subsection (a)(ii), since it relates to content posted by other people (so I don't have rights to it and don't care). Section (b) is limited to \"name, likeness, and image\" -- not the same as all the content you create. Am I wrong?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
February 16, 2009 12:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MarcoDione: This is a good point. I'm going to look into this and post an update if necessary. Thx.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Don Ball
February 16, 2009 2:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Facebook capitulated after launching Beacon. Wonder if they'd do the same if enough people complained? Maybe it's time for a little gov't oversight?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Susan Spaulding
February 16, 2009 2:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

WOW!!! The news just gets better and better :( :(

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 2:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Facebook's TOS are absolutely inexcusable. My friends constantly complain because I don't post more photos, but I post a disclaimer on my profile that I refuse to post photos due to the TOS.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Mary
February 16, 2009 2:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Since I can't read legal-ese, here's my question: I've never posted anything to facebook where I actually had it open to the public. It has always had the privacy settings done to friends or even tighter. So how exactly do they protect the right to privacy that they grant me by letting me have those settings with their rights to my image?

I didn't post it publicly.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
menty666
February 16, 2009 2:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

F'em, I'm going to start looting their graphics too.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anastasia Makarenko
February 16, 2009 2:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

...and this is why a really want to live in europe :)
AND they let me post this here straight from the site!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
tundey
February 16, 2009 3:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't understand why facebook would make a move like this. Do they really want to have exclusive perpetual rights to all the crap people post there?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
SDreamer
February 16, 2009 3:14 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, that sucks. I didn't even really know about that. I'm probably closing my Facebook now because of it. I really need to start reading the fine print more often.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jrizos
February 16, 2009 3:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

So if I write a poem and post it on facebook, and then have it published elsewhere, can they sue me for copyright infringement?

Seriously. Sounds like that's what they are after here.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
February 16, 2009 3:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@jrizos: As I understand it, no. You don't lose your rights, you just share them with Facebook forever. Facebook can publish your poem as well, and they don't have to ask your permission beforehand or share any proceeds with you.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rheimbro
February 16, 2009 3:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"(ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website \"

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

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Blueskylaw
February 16, 2009 3:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

So I should stop posting all of my funny jokes and recipes for grilled cheese?

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Daniel Chapman
February 16, 2009 4:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

would this include phone numbers, like could they sell our phone numbers to companies for money?

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?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 4:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You have the choice to be an alarmist. If so, don't put anything up that you won't want to monetize later (or be shameful of when you grow up). If FB wants happy users then they won't tick people off by ruining a happy relationship down the line. They are merely doing a little 'CYA.' Smart.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 4:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"You are solely responsible for the User Content that you Post on or through the Facebook Service. You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish....\"

Don't these two sentences contradict each other?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
kyle4
February 16, 2009 4:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

As someone who's only method for his friends and people he knows to read his scripts and stories/blog entries off Facebook. F*** them. If they were to say, pitch my script to a studio, you bet your ass I'd sue them.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
kyle4
February 16, 2009 4:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kylo4iskyle4: Not sure how this will go down but I just shared this link on Facebook so everybody could see it. How's that for some awareness?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
SpiderPaintingDollars
February 16, 2009 5:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@kylo4iskyle4: Same, I also removed any pictures I might actually want the rights to (most of them). Even if they're still on the Fuckbook system, its pretty much on principal.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
February 16, 2009 6:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SpiderPaintingDollarz: lol, \"Fuckbook\" I'm going to have to remember that one.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 5:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I don't think this is a case of Facebook using your photos in the future. I think it's much more about the geographical data. Who's in what group and where etc. It gives them an amazing data set, worth hundreds of millions of dollars to marketing companies.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 5:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

My problem is that many of us have personal data, including information and images about our children, employment, education, and other demographic and sometimes non-public information that we would not want sold to 3rd parties without our permission. Now they can sell to marketers whatever they want and we have no say or control over our exposure to these 3rd party organizations. This makes them bigger scumbags than banks, who at least have to allow you to opt out.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
SpiderPaintingDollars
February 16, 2009 5:38 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

What about people who have used the Email Friend Finder? Quick, change your passwords before Facebook downloads your Gmails!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 6:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Facebook, recently closed our school mascot's page down too. Our mascot's not a real person there's been no response for requests to access to the account to retrieve any data. This has been a problem for us, but obviously now facebook can use it.

Our response is going to be to frame facebook for the 'birdnapping' at http://birdnapped.com

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jibran Masud
February 16, 2009 6:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

it is scary! just thinking of possibilities!!!!

Reply
","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Mr. Gunn
February 16, 2009 7:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Contrary to some comments, these TOS aren't \"fairly standard\". These terms are obnoxious, but also not really surprising from the company that brought you Beacon, designed to track everything you buy from anywhere online.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Craig Sparer
February 16, 2009 7:53 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

ironically, facebook also has full rights to this comment i am posting.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Tim Stiffler-Dean
February 16, 2009 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Craig Sparer: I was actually wondering about that. So any comment made using FaceBook Connect gives FaceBook rights to those as well?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 8:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You know, I don't think that it's an issue where facebook says \"We're going to take all of your pictures and literature and sue you if you use them in your own context\". That would be stupid, since that's ALL their target demographic tends to do. Rather, it's a bit more subtle. Facebook most likely will take all of your interests, hobbies, and general spending traits and publish them to relevant corporations. What they're doing is generating an as close to unbiased focus group as possible (I say unbiased because people tend to be relaxed while on facebook rather than excited toward a specific product). The best part for them is that they're not paying for the focus group... it just naturally occurs.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Benjamin Donguk Lukoff
February 16, 2009 8:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Hmm, so much for this:

\"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...\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 9:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ok, maybe I'm naive or stupid (or both), but doesn't the phrase \"subject only to your privacy settings\" mean that they can't do anything with your photos or other content that would violate your privacy settings? So if you set photos \"for friends only\" they could only use your photos or poems or whatever for something they'd limit to your friends?

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 9:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Holy crap. and here i was thinking this was a good way to see what was going on with friends and family. i find it amusing that you can't post anything copyrighted or products of someone else's intellectual property when you yourself waive any right to hold onto yours. i guess it's time to post pictures and stuff elsewhere, then.

thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention.

-b

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anne Kathrine Yojana Petterøe
February 16, 2009 9:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

For those of you still on Facebook, I created a group there against the new TOS.
Feel free to join..

[www.facebook.com]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 10:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Basically, Facebook now owns a non-exclusive worldwide distribution right to your content forever from this TOS agreement forward. FB might even be able to take ownership of the content itself. So, for people who value their content and copyrights, you shouldn't use Facebook. That means, if you are a musician, video producer, podcaster or produce any copyrighted content, you should host it elsewhere with better content terms and simply link to it on Facebook. Facebook will own the links, but not the content or distribution rights to it.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Bobbi Jo Panciera
February 16, 2009 12:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Perhaps it is time for facebook users to all donate a few dollars and launch a class-action lawsuit globally. T

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dragonprism
February 16, 2009 12:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm not surprised. They refuse to delete your information from their servers when you close your account, why would they care what they do with your content?

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 12:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In Europe this would be illegal under Data Protection laws. If I leave Facebook and tell them to delete my stuff they have to delete it - no legalese about me signing those rights away

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
rhombopteryx
February 16, 2009 3:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Ilovemygeek
February 16, 2009 1:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What if I just watermark everything I upload on Facebook from now on? Not much they can use it for then.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Walkingstick Mountain
February 16, 2009 8:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ilovemygeek:

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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
February 16, 2009 4:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
johnfrombrooklyn
February 16, 2009 1:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Now that my basically computer illiterate father in his 60s has a Facebook account, I believe the end is near. The problem with Facebook's popularity is its popularity. We all have various circles of friends and we don't necessarily want them to have the same information. I don't want my friends from high school to know the same things about me as my friends from work. I don't want my aunts and uncles to know the same things about me as my drinking buddies. Facebook disintegrates those various walls of privacy. Sooner or later somebody will come create a \"better Facebook\" that we'll use for our real friends and Facebook will become more of an acquaintance thing.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Joe Dawson
February 16, 2009 1:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am going to change my name, who is Joe Dawson?! :)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 2:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, you could always try the old EULA reclamation trick - simply post something on Facebook stating, \"By posting this comment, Facebook agrees to release all rights to content posted by me to me, irrevocably.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 2:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Did anyone read this part? \"subject only to your privacy settings\"

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 2:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have never used Facebook (for reasons including the TOS) but I did use Yahoo! Answers for a few weeks in a fit of boredom. (I retired from tutoring but figured since I had time on my hand, I could answer kids' homework questions or give parents guidance about their kids' education and continue to help people.)

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 2:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Given this day and age with people doing stupid things on public sites (like posting pictures of questionable behaviour, private or otherwise, etc.) that even if you remove said content, it could come back to haunt you at a later time.

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!

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Bob Roman
February 16, 2009 2:46 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just great, my kids and I are always on there, I can believe they can do that!

Bob

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 3:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While we all marvelled at the various possibilites we all forgot that at the recent summit in Davos Mark was talking about using consumer information to get information of Iraq war (and that my fellow mates is a start).While we all applaud Mark for his ingenuinity what is evolving here is wrong in every context !

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TheThirstMutilator
February 16, 2009 3:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Quick, someone lose a high profile case against them so the word spreads soon enough...

FACEBOOK IS MADE OUT OF PEOPLE!!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
rhombopteryx
February 16, 2009 3:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kee Hinckley
February 16, 2009 3:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

But wait, it also says, \"subject only to your privacy settings\". If that clause is really intended to say that Facebook can keep using your content after you leave, then you could instead just lock down your privacy and not leave.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Charles Vestal
February 16, 2009 3:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Posting this with facebook connect, LOL:

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.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 3:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This isn't really that shocking. It's been a general truth since the beginning of the internet that once you post something on the internet, its there forever. So don't publish stuff you don't want on the internet permanently.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Martin Dalurzo
February 16, 2009 3:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Facebook: Please Don't Be Evil!!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jose Ramirez
February 16, 2009 3:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Can someone explain how would this stand in a court room when the terms also states:

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?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 5:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jose Ramirez: @Jose Ramirez:

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.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 3:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I consider EULA and TOS to be invalid anyway, given that 99% of users don't read them, and probably 99.9% don't understand them. It's also impractical for any person to be expected to read and understand every TOS and EULA for every service they use.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Gordon Boddington
February 16, 2009 3:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Facebook is a profit black hole and they are running scared to attempt to find any way to make money. Now they want to resell pictures of us drunk.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Glenwood Morris
February 16, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here's a question. A business has a facebook page, and uploads their trademarked logo to be the profile picture (pretty common). Now Facebook owns the rights to that trademarked logo, as well as the right to re-license that logo to others? Facebook could become a clearinghouse of legal knock-off branding!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 3:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Glenwood Morris: there is a big difference between trademark and copyright. That you grant facebook a copyright license to the logo means they can reproduce it (in a book, as a poster, etc) or create a derivative work, but trademark law would prevent them from using those reproductions or derivative works to sell a competing product.

IANAL.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kit Latham
February 16, 2009 4:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Please read this - disconcerting at best.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 4:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Come on everyone. The internet as we know has been around since at least 1993. If you haven't figured out that when you post on the internet it can be taken by now, you shouldn't be on the internet anyway. Besides, a vast majority of people on the internet don't use their words or likeness as their means of income. Get over it, keep posting, or get the hell off.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Valentin David
February 16, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license\"

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HogwartsAlum
February 16, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

One more reason not to do Facebook.

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!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jenna Kay Irwin
February 16, 2009 5:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So I probably need to delete the page I made for the company I work with or risk them selling our logo to a competitor?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ben Semisch
February 16, 2009 5:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Honestly, I couldn't care less. If I'm ashamed of something I have done I won't put it on the internet. If Someone wants to use my picture for an ad campaign, Rock N Roll, I'll be a celebrity on some level. IF they want to sell my phone number, and call me, I don't give a fuck I'll just *gasp* Not answer or I will answer and waste their time pretending like I give a shit!

Of course I will eat my words when facebook sells it's files to the CIA. That'd be something to see.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
OwenNubbah
February 16, 2009 5:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can't believe those bastards at Facebook are going to make millions off of my creative work.

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!


Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
D14BL0
February 16, 2009 5:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Why is this news to anybody? Facebook can do whatever they want with the content you put on their servers. That's the same for just about any website you'll find on the internet. Even right here, at Consumerist, anything you publish is theirs to use as they please.

THIS IS NOT NEW.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 5:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Lol! I would also like to point out that anything anyone says on this page, including the original article, are now usable by facebook (irrevocable[ly], perpetual[ly], non-exclusive[ly], transferable[ly], etc.) because consumerist.com has placed a \"share on facebook\" link on this page:

\"...including by offering a Share Link on your website...\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Hermann Mazard
February 16, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is just another case of the man holding us down!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 5:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is bad form on Facebook's part, but I am not suprised. I personally have become more than somewhat annoyed with all the social networks and applications. I have taken to hosting my pics on my own website, and just let people on my facebook know when they are updated.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 6:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm just wondering what significance the reference to \"subject only to your privacy settings\" has. Does that mean that if you have posted a photo so that \"only friends\" can see it, that constitutes a limitation on what use they can make of it?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Raheel Sethi
February 16, 2009 6:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Its just sad. Already due to these authoritarian regulations. Its stifling enough for developers for creativity .There should be some some sort of petition before Facebook becomes some sort of a monster and ends up hurting it self. As anybody would attest It doesnt take long for the fads to change.
Maybe when users start moving in throngs maybe only then would they reconsider .

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Evan Switzer
February 16, 2009 6:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ubik2501
February 16, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait, so by merely posting a link to my music website on my Facebook, I'm granting them perpetual ownership and license to use it without consulting or crediting me?

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Frank Ramirez
February 16, 2009 6:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Derek Tillotson
February 16, 2009 6:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is a load of garbage, and seems to be the straw to break this camel's back.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Frank Ramirez
February 16, 2009 6:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
WorldHarmony
February 16, 2009 6:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I can see that if you created an app there, Facebook would want it to live in perpetuity. After all, you used Facebook's software to create the app. Games that work on Facebook's system might be treated the same way by FB. If these apps become widely popular, Facebook doesn't want to lose them if the owners terminate their accounts.

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?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Coral Calatayud
February 16, 2009 6:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is good. All we should well know the rules of this 'fb' game. Most people use it everyday.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Carl Feeser
February 16, 2009 6:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
John Mclaughlin Williams
February 16, 2009 6:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

FaceBook has a new TOS (Terms of Service). The now claim absolute ownership of all content you upload. When you cancel your account they still own it, and may even sub-license it. This is a giant proprietary step that in essence claims disposal rights to everything anyone places on the site, from a picture to copyrighted material. THis should give us pause.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
p51baby
February 16, 2009 6:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have never felt so disgusted with this new change to the TOS. How about people who have passed away and have not closed their accounts? What happens to their materials? The reason I want to know is because my brother, who suffered his whole life from a congenital heart condition, passed away recently and posted many of his personal writings and fiction on facebook as a way to communicate to friends and family. Friends and family have been thinking of publishing his works and sending the proceeds to a charity in his name. So essentially, this TOS gives facebook the right to use his works WITHOUT our approval?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
MegaByte
February 16, 2009 6:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Facebook users should join this group to help spread the word: [www.facebook.com]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Nikola Ranguelov
February 16, 2009 6:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just as an experiment, I am posting a comment with Facebook Connect. I will try to delete it as soon as it starts showing in Google search results and see if it EVER goes away. Also, hopefully I won't be in trouble for warning others but if you don't hear from me again just assume I've had a visit by the men in black.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 6:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While they can write this in a contract, it doesn't mean it will be upheld. This is a standard form contract. Of which there are visible and invisible terms. These are all invisible; therefore, much less likely to be upheld. Also those previously using facebook have not been notified of any change. Good luck facebook, but I see this merely as a counter-offer and I don't accept.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 6:59 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My company has been studying up on facebook as we move forward into the social marketing arena. Facebook has been losing its ass by not becoming more of a ad whore like MySpace. They are looking for a way to put themselves back in the black. Their new TOS, by my assumption is just a backdoor to gain more revenue. \"If all else fails we'll sell user content\" type thing...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 7:04 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 7:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

So I know that people post things they don't have copyright to all the time. Especially when it comes to professionally shot photos of themselves and their kids. Wedding photos, things like that. Technically they should not be allowed to upload those without the consent of the photographer, but it happens all the time. How do the rights of the photographer fit into this?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Mariusz Sikorski
February 16, 2009 10:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@XuxaButterfly:

I would also like to know this.I've had pictures passed along and uploaded without even being asked for permission.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 7:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Doesn't this: \"subject only to your privacy settings\" mean that your privacy settings ultimately control how Facebook can use your uploaded content? They can't go beyond what you allow under your privacy settings, so, for example, if your privacy settings say that only friends can view your uploaded photos, then aren't Facebook's right to use those photos \"subject to\" that privacy setting under their policy, i.e., they can't distribute your photos beyond your friends?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jeff the Riffer
February 16, 2009 7:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is a good example of why the US needs an established, national privacy law. Guess how well those new TOS will fly in the Europen Union?

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Mindy Larson
February 16, 2009 7:22 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

All Facebook Users should read this...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
gangsta_geeky
February 16, 2009 7:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

um... when did this take effect? is it retroactive or are old users (i created my account about a year ago) protected under the tos they originally agreed to? i have yet to be directed to an \"accept our new tos\" page...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
February 16, 2009 7:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

[www.wetasphalt.com]


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.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Ubik2501
February 16, 2009 9:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cyberxion101: I think the real crux of the issue is that Facebook's EULA basically excludes the content creator from any say or choice in how content is used, and retains its license indefinitely. I allow my musical work to be downloaded freely, and don't mind people using it in other ways as long as they contact me and get my consent. With Facebook's EULA, they not only say \"screw off\" to the contact-and-consent idea (which is an integral part of the Creative Commons agreement), but say they can use your material however they wish even if you've left the website and no longer link or distribute material there. So hypothetically, I could leave Facebook tomorrow and they could use a song from my website in a commercial without compensation, consent or even advisory, tomorrow or ten years from now. I acknowledge that I cannot keep tabs on how every person and organization on the internet uses my material, but this goes beyond what I consider reasonable. And thanks to the wording of the EULA, I no longer have a choice. Maybe their lawyers are just spewing legalese to cover their asses, but I consider it an unethical move to completely remove any semblance of choice and consent from the user, especially when they sneak this crap through without informing the userbase.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
February 16, 2009 10:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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. ;)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 8:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

There are advantages to this. Everything you put on the net is open to anyone including FBI and etc. They can catch child porn violators, drug dealers and the such. People put addresses and phone numbers on their profile and anyone can utilize it. If someone comments that their going out for the evening. Guess what? You may come home to find that you've been robbed. So think before you tell your friends what you're doing?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shawn McMichael
February 16, 2009 8:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Putting the content on an alternative site will not protect your pics, because it states that they can use any materiel you link to the same as if you posted it on their website directly.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Piotr Chochlow
February 16, 2009 8:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

this is just unheard of...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Jabberkaty
February 16, 2009 9:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm just wondering about all those people who developed games and apps for facebook... Do they lose any creative rights? Or do they just lose the right to sue FB for profits they make?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 9:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Its not really facebook that you have to worry about who they use for server access and who owns the servers is not always transparent. Now I am sure currently this means nothing but think about where this could lead. Companies can say that they will host X,Y, and Z data about a person who matches L,Q, and W criteria. Example if a tabloid magazine company wanted to they could set up a server farm and tell facebook that they will store the pictures, wall posts, even inbox messages for people who lets say play sports, act, or study political science. This perfectly queried data is now theres

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jeff Partridge
February 16, 2009 9:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that to use a picture in advertising you not only need the rights to the picture, but you need a signed model release from the model as well. This came up in a lawsuit recently where someone released a picture of someone else (either on flikr or picasa, I can't remember) under a creative common license and some commercial entity used that picture in advertisement without obtaining the model release.

Even so, I would proceed with caution.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
zimzalabim
February 16, 2009 10:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It has to be pointed out that what they are doing is still illegal if it is challenged by you. For a start users in the USA have their rights bound by the constitution, just because you have signed a 'waiver' does not mean that you waive that right completely and utterly, especially if you claim that the changes were unforseen. Secondly this action bears a weak argument. Essentially their logic states that if you do something (in its most general term), they reserve the right to shoot you and then they carry out the shooting. Just because they have stated before hand that it may happen does not make it any more legal when it does.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Patrick Neeman
February 16, 2009 10:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Aw comon -- do you really think it's enforceable?

[www.usabilitycounts.com]

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If they give you notice, its enforceable. If they haven't, its not, at least in the Ninth Circuit, where, I think, facebook is based?

See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2007/07/court-says-no-to-changing-terms-of-service-without-notification.ars

However, query, whether we all have constructive notice given that we know of the change and continue to use the service.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 10:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I notice theres a way for Facebook users to sign in and comment on this story. So whats with the window that comes up allowing the Consumerist to post stories on a Facebook profile but requires that we agree to the Facebook terms of service? Kind of defeats the purpose of the story.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Barry Schnitt
February 16, 2009 10:58 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Mark Zuckerberg has posted to the Facebook blog in an effort to clarify the issue: [blog.facebook.com]

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 12:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

hate to break it to you but this isn't illegal. Remember, you're not supposed to be uploading anything thats owned by a third party.

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Ewebert Herd
February 16, 2009 11:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This doesn't seem legal if Facebook were to ever start trying to enforce this policy. For example if they really tried to take a picture from someone's profile and sell it or use it in one of their advertisements... even though their TOS seems to permit this usage it would violate copyright law entirely as the photographer of the image did not give consent to this usage (nor did the 'models' within the image). I'm quite disappointed in Facebook for such a power-hungry move. For more thoughts feel free to visit my profile.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 11:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

And why shouldnt they be able to, they offer a free service to all of us. People should know by now that anything put into the cloud on another persons server is fair game for that person to use how they want.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 16, 2009 11:26 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What about content you link to from your facebook account, specifically your blog posts? Do they own the rights to things you link to or things that get re-posted on your profile page from another source such as a blog post?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Brian Stelter
February 16, 2009 11:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This thread is averaging at least 200 views a minute. Is this the most-viewed Consumerist post ever?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
kyle4
February 17, 2009 2:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brian Stelter: I think it is. In fact I haven't seen any Gawker site rack up over 300,000 views in the year or so I've been reading them. This goes to show how great Consumerist is on its own merits. Congratulations to the great staff.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Mike Austin
February 17, 2009 12:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@undefined: Yeah, well, NOT! So anyone who creates content licenses it to corporate weasels? Not bloody likely? Creative Commons lives, breathes and facebook just doomed itself to McDonald's-quality content.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 12:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Several people have asked \"what if i opened, then closed my account before the term of service changed?\"

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 12:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Looking at the TOS for Facebook, today, the Termination section simply states the following:

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 1:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

About a year and a half ago I was able to delete my account entirely. I was trying to create a group account by creating a group profile, except I did so by creating a new \"person\" with my school email address. The same email address I used when I originally signed up for facebook. So, when I used that email to try to create a new account my original, personal account got completely wiped out. Poof, vanished, into thin air. I was in correspondence with FB support for a while but they were worthless and had no answers. I don't know if this still works, but I thought it could help - for those of you that want to escape FB before it's too late! Best of luck,

JR

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
AllenK
February 17, 2009 1:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
AllenK
February 17, 2009 1:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@AllenK:


Sorry for reposting the previous poster's question.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Jonathan Bruck
February 17, 2009 2:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've seen people's content on facebook. I'm not concerned by this.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jesse Moses Hunter
February 17, 2009 2:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Personally I have been waiting for this to happen due to the fact that MOST of my writings have been posted on FB and for this reason I put a false time and date on them so that they cannot use them for their benefit. I also have taken the precaution and am ready to file lawsuits against them for using any of my writings for their financial benefit. I am and will take actions if they due so for the fact that these \"new\" \"terms of agreement\" took place LONG after I joined the Facebook network. So its pretty much like a contract that has new effects. I am hoping that these terms follow the same principle. If a person joined before these new terms took place then we SHOULD be exempt. That is where the loophole should lie in all this BS. But that is what I hope. I cannot predict what they will do for the fact that this comment is also connected to FB and for that matter anyone who has already posted on this thread will soon realize that if FB finds this then they will take actions and then the shit will hit the fan. I hope that if that does happen then we can rally together and soon bring down the power of this now corrupted network of sites that continue to do this to us day in and day out.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 2:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is not a big deal. How many people that are pretending to be really shocked and scared actually read Facebook's terms of service anyway? Probably few or none of you.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Joel Corson
February 17, 2009 2:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, this is a bloody revolting development. I joined a good while before this change, and I never had a reason to re-read the Terms of Service until now. I'd never have known otherwise. FUNNY, I've just checked my Facebook, and never received any kind of update (e-mail or otherwise) about this change in the very TOS itself. You'd think a sweeping change like this would be of great interest to the people using Facebook, wouldn't you?
Apparently not if you're Facebook admin...

The poor proles NEVER actually need to know anything. >_>
Screw you very much, Facebook.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Marlyse Comte
February 17, 2009 3:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Definitely worthwhile thinking twice before uploading. Especially now as more and more networks tie right into Facebook, e.g. even Apples iPhoto makes uploading a breeze and thus people will be more and more compelled to use this service - why does it not surprise me that such big changes to the clauses happen AFTER Facebook has established itself to what it is now?

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
mrash
February 17, 2009 3:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
valen
February 17, 2009 3:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

With this new TOS revision, Facebook has become the Hotel California of the Internet. You can check out of Facebook any time you like, but you can never really leave.

I guess the mantra to remember in the Information Age is: \"Whatever happens on the Internet stays on the Internet... Forever.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Murelle Hammant
February 17, 2009 3:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

My father once told me \"a good rule of thumb, if you don't want it to be on the cover of The Wall Street Journal, then don't post it on the internet.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 3:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm more concerned about the full-sized images that I upload. I realize that ANYBODY can \"steal\" the small image that can be viewed in my photo albums (and I could care less.) But Facebook scales it down so even if someone \"steals\" it it will look like crap when printed! But what about the larger file that they take the thumbnail from??? Do they store that to be used later?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Judi Quackenbush
February 17, 2009 4:31 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 4:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

As a facebook user I was fine with the changes that they’ve made so far (add revenue, and redesign) but this new term of service goes too far. I never signed up to a free-and-clear no problem if you use my stuff for promos and ads terms of service!

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Angela France
February 17, 2009 5:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

BLAH I shall have to delete facebook its too complicated and ugly anyways and theres no way for me to make my page look the way i want it to. I prefer myspace.. k thats all

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Don Schaefer
February 17, 2009 5:45 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

FB's terms haven't changed at all, FB just updated the terminology to include language to cover the newer services they offer. Why anyone would agree to these terms, I don't know. Why FB would write language like that if they didn't intend to take a real interest in ownership of your images, I don't know.

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?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Matt Drumm
February 17, 2009 8:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Sad

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 9:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I just read your blog, the new TOS, the old TOS, and their rely to the people who do not like the new TOS. I am a man who never joined the site. After reading their reply to the comments, I thank God I never joined. Their explaination does not change the problem with the new terms. It simply tries to redirect deflect the subject. From now on when a friend says or writes Facebook, I will reply \"You want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?\" Why? Because a person would have to be dumb and think they could really buy the Brooklyn Bridge to agree to the new TOS.

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!



Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 9:40 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I lost any and all trust in facebook since I watched this video:

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wogtTQs8Kzw

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Francesco Munafò
February 17, 2009 9:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

There are two important things everybody seems to be missing: \"subject only to your privacy settings\" means that if you set your privacy settings to \"friends only\" and remove your friends, you practically revoke the licence. So you may terminate the sharing of your posted materials before quitting Facebook, just as you would do while using it regularly. What the licence says is: we will not remove your content automatically if you erase your account, but you can still make it non viewable. So for me this in NOT a problem (correct me if I'm wrong here).

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 9:50 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

IMO Mr. Zuckerberg's legal position is fundamentally off. He says: \"When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they've asked us to share it with.\".What? I need to grant a license to a service provider?? Does the car park need a license to use my car when I park it there? Or does my phone company own my talks with my girl friend (or who else)???

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Duccio Ballerini
February 17, 2009 10:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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...


:)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 1:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I opened my account prior to the change in TOS. I was never notified of the change in TOS. Therefore I do not believe the TOS will apply.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 1:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well although I do find this disturbing I am also very aware that once you post ANYTHING online or even on your computer you run the risk of it being out there forever...someone can hack into your computer and get personal info and when you put things online from what I understand there is a copy somewhere out there. Same thing with people disposing of an old computer unless the hard drive is destroyed someone else can pull info off of it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Gianmarco Moroni
February 17, 2009 1:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

bha

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Willjan
February 17, 2009 1:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Check out:

[www.digitaljournal.com]

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.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Telekinesis123
February 18, 2009 8:51 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Willjan:

Excellent find. It shows what were talking about in action. It says All Rights Reserved and the Attribution is Facebook.com

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Gary Ward
February 17, 2009 2:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 4:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is nothing new,nothing exciting,and no big deal. Facebook provides a service. In exchange, they don't want anyone suing them for using say, a fun personal photo in a business meeting, to demonstrate to advertisers their demographic. C'mon people, if you use a free service, there is always a catch. =)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 4:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah...my friends called me paranoid when I decided not to post my artwork for them to see on Facebook. This. Is. Why. Unfortunately, Facebook has become a way for people in the arts, advertising, etc. to network and invite an audience. I joined in December (kicking and screaming into 2009) because several groups communicated solely by Facebook updates. Grrr. I can not imagine the possible problems involving high-quality scans, photos of original artwork, and professional photography. Seriously, I'm a fine-print reader, but you can't beat Terms of Service if you ever want to use software, view images, order a pizza, etc. and they all know it.

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?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Stacey Hamman
February 17, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Do links count as content, and whatever those links contain?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Brad Randlett
February 17, 2009 4:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm closing my account...as best I can.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Helen Lindell
February 17, 2009 5:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Andy Thorson
February 17, 2009 8:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Forget that crap. I think they need to change the wording on their TOS. They have no right to steal works of other users like that. I know they are just trying to protect themselves but at the same time they want to be able to use peoples work for their own gain. Forget that crap... myspace here I come.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Raeann Mundell
February 17, 2009 8:01 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

In this post The Consumerist totally freaks out about facebook being evil (again) and then has to print two revisions reneging their statement.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
February 18, 2009 3:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
February 18, 2009 2:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Raeann Mundell: If you continue to read Consumerist, you'll see that we update posts frequently, or post follow ups (which I did with this story as well, collecting all the update material into a new post).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
February 18, 2009 2:23 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Raeann Mundell: Inaccurate. The updates do not \"renege\" anything, but they do add clarification and links to content the came into existence after the initial post was published.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 17, 2009 9:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I submitted a request to permanently delete my account on February 3. I received noticed that my account would not be permanently deleted until Feb. 16. Is that normal? Do you think the delay is in relation to the changed TOS? I didn't even know about them!!! I just wanted my account deleted. What can I do? Help!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ike Bottema
February 17, 2009 10:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Some interesting points raised here. My overriding concern is that while FB ownership give every indication of being forthright and \"wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want\", forever is a long time. What happens if FB ownership transistioned to a less scrupulous entity?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Nathalie Kanto
February 17, 2009 11:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Scary. Kinda subject that raises a question about the state of copyright laws and social networking.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Gwendolyn Hoshield
February 18, 2009 2:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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..

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Yvonne Martinez
February 18, 2009 2:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

ok so there goes my Political Career, I'll just say I never inhaled... and that wasn't me :)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Bruce007
February 18, 2009 2:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It says that the license is \"subject only to your privacy settings.\" Doesn't that mean if your privacy settings limit the content to friends only, that Facebook cannot use the content in any other way?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Moiz Valliani
February 18, 2009 3:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Very strange & disturbing news.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 18, 2009 4:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Anyone who posts anything to a website and thinks it can't be used for other things is an idiot. How many copyrights have everyone reading this Digg broken, \"borrowing\" images and copying music and movies and games and software over the Internet? Why do you think your content should be treated any more respectfully? Privacy is an illusion. Get over it.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Tim Glenn
February 18, 2009 4:35 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Thinking about pulling my account along with my 150+ friends... Not a lot but if we all do it...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 18, 2009 5:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

There are alot of minors on facebook... does that make the terms of service voidable to any minors who post things, then want to delete their account? And can't facebook be sued if they choose to use a minors information before they turn 18 for any reason?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Layal Baaklini
February 18, 2009 5:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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..

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Layal Baaklini
February 18, 2009 5:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.\"

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Patrick Clark
February 18, 2009 7:11 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

And now facebook has reversed their terms of service. Go Consumerist!!!

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Shawn Eggebrecht
February 18, 2009 7:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Patrick Clark:


You had it Patrick! Go Consumerist!!!!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shawn Eggebrecht
February 18, 2009 7:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.:

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shawn Eggebrecht
February 18, 2009 7:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Shawn Eggebrecht
February 18, 2009 7:27 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ZafirMink
February 18, 2009 8:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

\"Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user's privacy settings.\"

If that's the case, why isn't that language in the ToS? Just because someone \"promised\" to do so doesn't mean anything.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Ghayath Almadhoun
February 18, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

غياث المدهون

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Karen Ozorio
February 18, 2009 6:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Ridonkulous!!!


just cause facebook is gaining popularity worldwide, does not give them a free pass to do this kind of thing.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Luis Barrera
February 18, 2009 7:42 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Time to cancel my account and warn my daughter, an artist, to protect her work

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Laurelishish Nish
February 18, 2009 8:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

IT FIGURES!!
I just signed on a week ago, and then FACEBOOK promptly just up and changes it's TERMS OF SERVICE for the worst!!!
GrrrRRRRRrrrr!!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Kate Ferguson
February 18, 2009 9:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 18, 2009 11:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

We, current facebook user's never agreed to the new terms. That would be like a credit card saying that they bumped your APR to 100%! If one is never notified, then one can never agree or disagree!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Joanie Caggiano
February 18, 2009 11:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 19, 2009 5:18 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

We seem to keep running into problems like this with Facebook. Maybe we should take a different approach. What if there were a non-profit social network? It's a simple idea, but it'd take some strategy to pull off...

See tsuinami.org for a first stab at flushing out the idea.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Elissa R. Viscelli
February 19, 2009 6:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I hope that there is some professor out there, teaching contract law, who is using this as a good, relevant current event.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Mason Gray
February 19, 2009 3:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 19, 2009 3:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This statement \"you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies\" has been in either the TOS or the Privacy Policy or User Agreement since day 1.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Tom H. C. Anderson
February 19, 2009 7:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Agree with the reaction to the new TOS, but felt the response by Zuckenberg was good. I posted about it on my blog yesterday, along with some tips for Facebook and other companies who may be involved in managing CGM. We've done a lot of work in this area, and these companies need to learn to trust their user community a bit more, if they do they can even be leveraged to keep moderation costs down etc.

Post here: [www.tomhcanderson.com]

Tom H. C. Anderson
Managing Partner
Anderson Analytics, LLC

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Aaron VanAlstine
February 20, 2009 1:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Time to cancel your Facebook account...permantently

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 20, 2009 2:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Everyone really needs to go to their Facebook PRIVACY settings page and adjust accordingly. In particular look at the Applications Settings tab and block Beacons.

https://register.facebook.com/privacy/?view=platform&tab=overview

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
February 20, 2009 8:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This TOS language isn't uniquer to FaceBook.

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).

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Melanie Barrett
February 25, 2009 9:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If facebook used the photos for commercial purposes, thats a problem.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Troy Janisch
February 28, 2009 4:32 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Mylife.com (formerly reunion.com) is doing what everyone feared from Facebook

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]

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
March 6, 2009 2:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Upon request of an email I sent to facebook about users being able to \"cyberstalk\" me and harass me having gotten my email address off of my webpage I was given this message: Hi Allie,

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.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Leigh Ann Monk Reyes
March 8, 2009 11:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Catherine Weir
March 9, 2009 2:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is rubbish and must be changed. If not, then we facebook should cease to exist- period!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Adele Rattee
March 10, 2009 11:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

as always a reminder that anything submitted to the public domain can be downloaded by anyone who peruses and used for profit, and it's naive to think one is a rightful owner of anything, once shared. i have been photographed in the street by a stranger, and so have my children, much to my chagrin, and challenged the snapper who retorted that were they to ask everyone they captured their permission? my gut reaction was to say 'yes', hence celebrities attacking journalists ft2t. Facebook doesn't necessarily have to have a moral conduct for its customers. However, could we all, en masse, take them to court?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bbabbsyboo
March 13, 2009 4:21 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

so i have a question... a video was uploaded on my facebook that in violation of the terms of use. As a joke. Some friends and I did it. One of the people in the account got offended and decided to call the cops... But i had deleted the video within an hour or two after it was uploaded. They deleted my facebook and sent me an email stating that \"they could not obtain any information about the deleted content due to technical issues\" She says the cops are \"contacting facebook to retrieve the video\"... is this going to be possible now because of the new Privacy Policy??? SHould i be worried?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
March 14, 2009 3:06 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

1. No one should post any material on Facebook that they hope to derive profits from. If anyone has done that, they can only blame their own stupidity.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jillian Hair
March 16, 2009 10:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

it starting to sound like facebook is actually stealing their personal pic for the defualt pic purposes but it started to sound like some kind of a pervert staring and studyingyour life THAT IS WAY TO SCARY!

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Sheila Schugar
March 18, 2009 12:47 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

You will loose many subscribers including myself if you do not drop this silly right of people to belong to a website and own their own page. This could potentially end up in many lawsuits.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Joe T Williams
March 19, 2009 12:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Sian Young
March 27, 2009 9:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

So does this mean if i put a song on here Facebook can do what they want with it?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Casey Cochran
March 27, 2009 10:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

i don't know about all of you, but that's not the original terms i agreed to, so does it apply to things posted BEFORE the new TOS was written? cuz i never signed that one. now, it's been a month and no one's boycotted (although some have deleted pics)(?). so it seems to me that this is a precautionary notification on Facebook's part to avoid legal trouble associated with the fact that they log just everything that anyone ever posts on the site. what i don't understand is how it affects me. will this new feature inhibit my rights to potential publish of intellectual property on this site? could it ever be used commercially, without my expressed permission and compensation? is it just a company covering it's ass, or an exploitation?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Daniel Speicher
March 28, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The biggest thing that is scary about this, is that as a photographer, they are taking rights to my photos to use them without permission and compensation. I'm only one of many on here that post work on the site to show off new work. The old TOS allowed me to remove my images and I still retained the full rights to my images.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Lionel Pinn
April 6, 2009 1:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Troy Leistner
April 10, 2009 10:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
James Kruppa
April 20, 2009 1:05 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

All my photos are copyrighted and it is written
on each photo we can see me:

This photo is copyrighted to James Kruppa
And cannot be sale or used by publicity agencies
without permission of his owner.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
James Kruppa
April 20, 2009 1:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

All my photos are copyrighted and it is written
on each photo we can see me. I don`t give any rights to Facebook on my contents that is my own:

This photo is copyrighted to James Kruppa
And cannot be sale or used by publicity agencies
without permission of his owner.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Jay Courtland
April 26, 2009 7:43 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

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]

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Amy Pospiech
April 28, 2009 5:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Only half sarcastic. Clearly every social network is trying to \"monetize\" which is a necessary part of business. You're right, I don't think Facebook is doing a very good job of it so far.

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.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Annalise Spriggs
July 21, 2009 10:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

i have facbook but i am blocked i need help getting unbloked

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
anarchynuk
July 21, 2010 11:46 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Face: my mother in law helped my 12yo daughter set up an account so she could chat with an 18 yo boy on the Internet. I found out about a few days ago. Does facebook delete accounts? I would like my daughter and mother in laws accounts deleted. I never use the site nor do have an account. Please let me know if you have any suggestions?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Hephaestus
September 17, 2010 9:04 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

i am not going to insult any ones intelligence (or provide info to third party (gov.) browser searches) by pasting the legal information so check out Facebooks privacy policy (PP) via link below. i want anyone reading this post to read all of section 2, 4, and the \"Limitations on removal\" paragraph in section 7. additionally, to wrap up this collage of legal information, read \"To respond to legal requests and prevent harm\" as the last title under section 6.

let me summarize it for you, but hopefully you can read and infer for yourself. section 2 in PP entitles FB to gather information you or your friends post on FB. this could be anything from your profile information to pictures, videos, posts, events, poking, statuses, relationships, pages, applications (platforms), ip address, browser info and location, type of computer (or phone), and pages you visit. lets also not forget that it gathers any information yours friends put on FB about you.

before moving onto sect. 4, note that platforms (indp. of FB) and ads (even w/o clicking on them) can gather any information on you. however FB put in legal statement restrictions to prevent limitless information absorbing under penalty of losing partnership (this doesn't stop them however once the deed is done)

section 4, at the beginning allows websites you visit or applications your run to access your general Information. i bet the average (or below average (but aren't they all?)) FB user doesn't know this. intended or unintended information is being sent out to every website and application in existence regarding (or without regard to?) the users.

now sect. 7 and then i have something that will blow your top off in sect. 6. \"Limitations on Removal\" clause allows FB to \"retain certain information to prevent identity theft and other misconduct\" after the request for account deletion. but isn't that ambiguous? any information you put on FB can deter indentity theft like a freaking barcode! this allows FB to store any info indefinitely. but let us not forget that FB is greedy and is mutually partnered with ad campaigns and platform designers. FB subtly included a clause at the end of 7 that allows them to retain any info they have gathered about the user, this not only, but websites that already have your general information, LIKE YAHOO!!

now for the section 7 center ring, keeping in mind all the powers listed previously. FB although american born feels like it has an obligation to other national powers. i quote: \"We may disclose information pursuant to subpoenas, court orders, or other requests (including criminal and civil matters)...This may include respecting requests from jurisdictions outside of the United States where we have a good faith belief that the response is required by law under the local laws in that jurisdiction, apply to users from that jurisdiction, and are consistent with generally accepted international standards. This may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, courts or other government entities.\" So those of us with citizenship can have FB unknowingly disclose their information to foreign entities at their own discretion.

i have presented the facts. but what harmfull things have/will happen/ed under FB legal PP jurisdiction? wider access to general information by stalkers, social engineering malware/spyware/viruses, direct lines of investigation by foreign powers (or any entity FB deems as necessary to have your personal information *cough* (blackmail or personal information bidding?))

http://www.facebook.com/policy.php

Reply
");