
FB plans to pass your photos to advertisers, make users the stars of online ads - ColinWright
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/04/09/facebook-plans-pass-photographs-advertisers-make-users-stars/
======
floatingatoll
The simplest explanation of why this is a tragically bad idea for them can be
explained by a single product: “condoms”.

If they automatically identify photos where someone happens to have left out a
condom somewhere in the frame, and then use their likeness to advertise that
brand of condoms (at the brand’s request), they will destroy any remaining
trust in their platform among teens and inspire hostile legislation after the
progeny of a public figure have their face used in such an ad without their
opt-in consent.

This is one of the worst ideas they could possibly have come up with. It’s
insane to think what kind of filter bubble they’re working within that permit
this to proceed to the patent stage.

~~~
throwaway_9168
It is the same filter bubble that leads an employee to triumphantly proclaim

"Remember, what Facebook is doing has never been done before. There are going
to be mistakes."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19321420](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19321420)

It reminded me of this classic tweet:

[https://twitter.com/emilylindin/status/933073784822579200?la...](https://twitter.com/emilylindin/status/933073784822579200?lang=en)

~~~
return0
I wonder why we need to justify everything as a fault of a "filter bubble".
Can't it be that these are bad/selfish/self-absorbed people?

~~~
floatingatoll
Self-absorption and selfishness at the expense of others is a “filter bubble”
that seems popular these days. While you could probably construct an argument
that this slang isn’t the best description, that’s no reason to stop using it
as shorthand for “a subgroup of modern social culture whose values are locally
aligned but contrast with those otherwise proximal to them, whether physically
or culturally”. Being selfish does not imply that you are a member of a local
‘cult’ of selfishness, so a group-focused slang will be required if you seek
to replace that usage of filter bubble.

------
ThalesX
Feels like the kind of feature that you monetize until there are too many
voices against it at which point you probably made so much money that it's
totally worth it.

~~~
lmilcin
I hope people stop being naive and finally understand they are product, not
the customers. If you are not paying for the services it means somebody else
pays for you to get the service and that your interest is only important to
Facebook as long and as much as they can still keep you posting all your
lives' details and carrying their spying app on your phone. Because that's
what FB really wants from you, not your happiness.

~~~
kamarg
You're always the product. Even paying for a product doesn't mean they aren't
gathering and selling your data. As examples, cell phone companies selling
location data, tv manufacturers selling viewing data, cable/isp companies
selling your browsing history, credit card companies selling your purchasing
history. The list goes on. If you don't have a specific guarantee in the
contract at the time you paid for a good or service that your data isn't being
sold to or shared with third parties, you are the product.

~~~
gumby
> You're always the product. Even paying for a product

Really! I am astonished that people seem comfortable that their products have
prominent and sometimes dominant logos of a manufacturer, so that they have
paid to be walking/driving billboards for somebody else.

Plenty of iphone and ipad cases have holes to show the mirrored Apple logo --
originally intended as a selfie mirror but obsolete for that purpose once the
selfie camera was introduced. (I use both devices myself but don't worry about
blocking the logo).

~~~
ravenstine
It's about status. If you can associate your brand with status, you can make
people do anything.

~~~
HenryBemis
I agree with gumby's comment, and also wanted to add that.. I can afford the
most expensive clothes you can imagine. I really can. But since I was a
teenager I always disliked paying someone £€$ in order to become their walking
bilboard. I equally dislike when I give my car for service, and the garage
sticks 1-2-3... stickers with their logo, without asking me. If they want
advertising space, they should pay for it.

My typical 'uniform' is jeans and some long-sleeve shirt, the ones you buy
from Primark for £5 or £10. I have searched for similar items without logo and
I can't find anyting decent. Even Patagonia sticks a logo.

They can keep their brand to themselves. If Burberry makes a long-sleeve the
way I want it, without any isnignia, and the quality matches the price, I will
gladly cough up the £100 to buy it, because I know it will last me 10 years.
Until then, I am keeping my money - my money. :)

~~~
daniel-cussen
I took the little crocodile off a Lacoste shirt once. Took fucking forever, it
was stitched on super tight, but once you remove it it leaves no trace.

------
nafizh
Facebook's motto: 1\. Implement out-of-touch privacy antagonistic methods to
earn money. 2\. Face public backlash. 3\. Say, we are sorry. We are stopping
it (not totally). We are going to improve. 4\. Repeat.

------
gesman
Business model that could make so much money that followed-up penalties for
privacy violations already priced-in.

Until government steps in - this behavior will continue.

The question and blames should be directed to lawmakers - why they are
hesitant to pass strong privacy laws to stop that.

Clearly FB is not going to do anything. It's way cheaper to send Mark Z. to be
grilled once a year then abandon privacy violation based business models.

~~~
908087
> why are they hesitant to pass strong privacy laws

Because companies like FB/Google/Amazon spend ridiculous amounts of money
"lobbying" and trading favors with the government to prevent them from doing
anything to get in the way of surveillance capitalism.

------
grawprog
I thought they already did this. I'm pretty sure it says somewhere in their
terms of service they can use your pictures for this(not that I don't think
it's horrible or that it's excusable.) Wasn't there some trouble a bunch of
years ago when someone found one of their facebook pictures being used in an
ad? Or am I thinking of something totally different?

~~~
badwolf
Maybe it was using your name/profile photo on ads for companies/products that
you previously "liked" or interacted with?
[https://mashable.com/2013/09/05/facebook-ads-
photo/#Gam.tGNJ...](https://mashable.com/2013/09/05/facebook-ads-
photo/#Gam.tGNJ0aql)

~~~
grawprog
Yeah pretty sure it was that one.

------
partiallypro
When I was in college and Facebook was relatively new, I once saw a girl I
went to college with in a dating ad. She wasn't a model, she didn't give them
permission. But they scraped her photo from Facebook.

------
soared
It would make much more sense to just use the data for advertising and not
peoples pictures.

Examples: \- If you see Steve's close friends all drink grey goose but he
doesn't start advertising goose to him \- If you have advertised Polo shirts
to John and then he uploads a picture of him in a new Polo shirt, fb can take
credit for that sale \- Allow advertisers to exclude users who already own/use
their product

etc.

This approach is much less visible to consumers and so would be more widely
accepted (or just have less articles saying bad things about it).

~~~
okmokmz
So essentially their current business model?

~~~
soared
Yep just incrementally better.

------
rythie
I can’t see how this would be legal. As a amateur photographer myself, I know
that to do a commercial photo like this, to advertise a product, I’d need
model releases and a potentially a property release. Neither of these are
needed for editorial images or people’s own personal pictures. I can’t see the
facebook could do this via the EULA, so they’d have to contact everyone
identifiable in the pictures - which I suspect would mean it’s not viable for
them.

~~~
olefoo
That thing where you click on the box that says "I agree to the terms of
service." during signup.

Technically you are giving facebook all rights to reproduce and monetize any
content you put on the platform... thus has it always been.

~~~
oliwarner
You're not claiming to have model releases for all subjects in your photos,
nor allocate those permissions to Facebook. Very different thing from
copyright, which they do get through the EULA.

And the T&Cs suggest they would only share things in a way that was
"consistent with your privacy and application settings", and they terminate
their license when you remove something from there (surprisingly noble).

But yes, you're the product, etc. Don't be surprised that they want to
monetise your content.

~~~
megous
So they detect and use only photos where you're alone with the product and
stop the use in ad campaign, as soon as you remove the photo.

Easy.

------
ralusek
This is like the Netflix show Maniac, where Emma Stone's character had sold
her likeness to be used in advertisements.

~~~
w-ll
Not really, I'd say in that case its more like doing stock photo shoots,
knowing it will be used for commercial purposes.

Vs what FB is doing, sure they mostly likely own any photo uploaded to them
via their TOS, but people never expected for those photos to be used in
commercial purposes, even if they say they can in the TOS.

------
MrZongle2
So what if a user uploads a photo they don't own? If I take a group picture
with my friends (but I'm not a Facebook user), send it (outside of Facebook
controlled means) to one of those individuals pictured, and THEY choose to
post it -- what happens, in this new scenario?

The poster doesn't own the rights to the photo, and thus doesn't have the
right to implicitly (via some EULA rewrite) grant Facebook the right to use
it.

~~~
somethoughts
Or what if someone uploaded copyrighted Getty images of famous people which
then get used in ads. Whose liable in that case when Getty rolls around with
DMCA notices.

------
JohnFen
Well, this is just another piece of evidence that my decision to both not be a
part of Facebook and to not have any pictures of me online were correct.

~~~
idlewords
That's not enough, though—you also have to make sure your friends are not on
facebook, and don't put pictures of you online. It's not an individual consent
issue anymore in a wired-up world.

~~~
JohnFen
Yes, I know. In the end, you can't cover things 100%. I have made my
preference very well known to my friends and family, though, and they have
respected it so far to the best of my knowledge.

I will admit, though, that I do try to avoid having my picture taken by
anybody for any reason if I can possibly do so.

Social media has made it too dangerous to engage in blind trust about these
things anymore.

------
KorematsuFred
They have filed a patent does not mean they will actually develop it.

~~~
mic47
To file patent, you have to have some prototype, but it actually cannot be in
production for more than year (and does not have to be in production at all).

~~~
JoeAltmaier
In US, requirement for a model dropped in 1880

~~~
glbrew
Yup.

------
dredmorbius
This is absolutely literally precisely the practice that ignited the right to
privacy movement in the late 19th century: misappropriation of likeness
without notice or compensation for commercial advertising, in the case of
Abigail Roberson, whose 1897 portrait photograph was appropriated by Franklin
Mills to sell flour, reproduced over 25,000 times acros the United State. She
sued and won, but lost on appeal.

[https://gizmodo.com/how-a-19th-century-teenager-sparked-a-
ba...](https://gizmodo.com/how-a-19th-century-teenager-sparked-a-battle-over-
who-o-1829572319)

------
craftinator
What an exceeding corrupt and useless tactic! Thanks Facebook, every time I
think you've hit the rocky bottom of the Moral Well, you break or the shovels
and pick axes and make stuff happen!

------
starpilot
Their mission is to make the world more open and connected.

~~~
JohnFen
No. Their mission is to monetize as much of the world's population as
possible. That "open and connected" thing is just the pretty lie that they
have to tell.

------
quickben
Is this connected to that creepy home device of theirs with the camera being
constantly on?

------
tmm84
This is scary.

I can just imagine this being the new Instagram challenge for young people.
Get good looking enough to get in an ad, make no money but be famous in your
group of friends. Personally, I don't want to see anyone I know being "used"
for an ad. Just imagine, grandma being featured in an adult diaper ad or your
son's friend being used in an ad for some toy. Keeping up with the Jones' by
seeing them in target ads.

------
jammygit
If you delete your account, is there any way to make sure your data is
deleted? I feel like disabling my account probably only denies myself access
to their data on me

~~~
swagasaurus-rex
Better to confound FB by posting/uploading fake content. Even better if you
can keep it consistently wrong. Be sure to tag your name to other people's
faces to confuse their facial recognition algorithms.

~~~
jammygit
reminds me of an extension that does that with browsing history:

[https://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/](https://cs.nyu.edu/trackmenot/)

------
Anarch157a
Lawyers and Para-legals of HN, what's your opinion on this; watermark all
photos you upload to FB with a disclaimer saying something like:

"By leaving this picture accessible, Facebook agrees that I retain full
copyrights, and Facebook can not use this picture for advertising purposes,
all clauses of Facebooks EULA in contrary being void"

Would something like this work and be accepted in a court of law ?

~~~
ladon86
No. You agreed to their EULA by signing up, but they are not agreeing to your
disclaimer by virtue of you posting it.

~~~
msla
Right. You're bound by their contract of adhesion, and they are not bound by
yours.

Leonine contracts are enforceable only in one direction, after all.

------
rolph
Im wondering if something other than my face could star in an ad, like say a
body part with googlie eyes stuck on it and a big smile drawn on it etc.

It would definately skew or alter brand perception, so here we go with a
filter being required.

------
nkrisc
I can't see the full article so maybe this is covered, but I wonder what kind
of protections they have to prevent users maliciously uploading photos
featuring brands in photos the brands would rather not be associated with.

~~~
jfk13
There are non-paywalled copies around, e.g. at
[https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1053866-time-to-rev-
up-...](https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1053866-time-to-rev-up-those-
delete-buttons-facebook-plans-to-pass-your-photographs-to-advertisers-and-
make-users-the-stars-of-online-ads/)

------
forkLding
I can see this being very popular on Instagram, it is already moving in that
direction. People love aspirational images of "themselves in the future" and
these ads always sell well.

------
Kye
Google got in trouble with something very similar with "Shared Endorsements."
One of many bad ideas that came along with Google Plus.

------
phantom_oracle
After a certain amount of time I've stopped caring or even wanting to express
any "moral outrage" at this situation. The users of Facebook have been given
enough reminders to vote with their feet and move to other platforms that are
more privacy-friendly.

If they choose not to and they are expecting a bunch of governments to address
their problems, that is a pointless exercise also.

The network effect cannot be so powerful that the 5-10 people you frequently
engage with online can't all move with you to other platforms.

------
miguelmota
Facebook will always do questionable things because the value they get from
these practices is way higher than the penalty cost.

------
Scoundreller
I think EBay has a clause like this in their terms, where you give them a non-
exclusive right to your product photos.

What a mess.

------
HenryBemis
Very interesting infographic shows "How Tech Giants Make Their Billion". I
think that we all have a good idea who the Big4 make their $$$$ but it is
interesting to see it also in relation with some coutries' GDP as well as
seeing how much each stream makes.

[1]: [https://assets.pcmag.com/media/images/551166-whyaxis-how-
tec...](https://assets.pcmag.com/media/images/551166-whyaxis-how-tech-giants-
make-their-billions-visual-capitalist.jpg)

------
tomc1985
Such bullshit that this is a patent

~~~
JohnFen
Lots of patents are complete bullshit.

------
mateo1
Looks like it could be retrofitted for political content very easily.

------
ggggtez
They already did this years ago. Has everyone really forgotten?

------
gcb0
google had this for ages. you can get to this permission from android google
account settings.

if even shows an example of a user's innocuous review showing up in an Ad.

