Original article that caused the outrage. In particular, the TOS did not say they owned your pictures, but it did give them a license that was quite broad, which included using your likeness in advertisements. However, the change that caused the outrage was that the license no longer expired on account deletion nor content removal.
https://web.archive.org/web/20111103081406/http://consumeris...
Original article that caused the outrage. In particular, the TOS did not say they owned your pictures, but it did give them a license that was quite broad, which included using your likeness in advertisements. However, the change that caused the outrage was that the license no longer expired on account deletion nor content removal.
https://www.npr.org/2009/02/17/100783689/facebook-users-angr...
News article about the outrage.
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/technology/internet/19fac...
News article about the walkback.
I could not find anything about it being challenged in court.