Are people really worried about this? The only reason this is in the TOS is so they have the right to keep running their data mining algorithms even after you delete your account, in case they find a new way to leverage your data. It's not like they're going to start selling a poetry anthology of your stuff or something.
The problem isn't that facebook is gonna use your stuff - it would be too much of a pr shitstorm for them.
The problem is that facebook is still bleeding money. Once they go belly-up, all their assets will be sold to the highest bidder, and the world largest collection of stock photos will likely be among the most valuable of them.
I have serious problems with "irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense)".
Uhh, dude, have a browse around the Corbis website. Then have a look around Facebook. The idea that Facebook has any value as a library of stock photos is frankly laughable.
The danger in using Facebook for stock photo's is an uploadeder who did not own copyright on the photo.
Facebook can't really sell the content unless they can prove the person who uploaded it had the writes to distribute it. Which you can't do in an automated fashion.
think of it as a game. If consumers get to sue companies for ridiculous amounts of money based on minor or imagined infractions then companies will in turn respond with ridiculous terms of service. Just on the off-chance that some idiot will sue in case facebook gets acquired and they forgot to wipe a backup tape with your data on it.
Agreed. Keep in mind that Facebook's original V.C. Investments came from the C.I.A.'s "Advanced Technology Research and Development Venture Capitial" Arm. (Say that three times fast.)
Governments being governments, they'd likely throw good money after bad. They might also feel, having gotten everyone in one central database, that Facebook is "too big to fail".
Given how comprehensive it is, I'd be very surprised if In-Q-Tel was all cutesy and shady about an investment in Facebook (a company that doesn't meet their objectives in any way).
The second round of funding into Facebook ($US12.7 million) came from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Its manager James Breyer was formerly chairman of the National Venture Capital Association, and served on the board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency in 1999. One of the company's key areas of expertise are in "data mining technologies".
Breyer also served on the board of R&D firm BBN Technologies, which was one of those companies responsible for the rise of the internet.
Dr Anita Jones joined the firm, which included Gilman Louie. She had also served on the In-Q-Tel's board, and had been director of Defence Research and Engineering for the US Department of Defence.
Anyway, I'm not saying Facebook is "big brother". I just think DoD is interested in advanced data mining and prediction capabilities. Also, they're interested in recruiting through Facebook, but that's entirely unrelated.
No...they can also, for example, use your picture in a Facebook TV advertisement or use a modified version of your profile, name, and likeness in a Facebook promotional video. These are not even the most extreme examples I can think of.
I just quit today. I was only logging in like once a month anyway. When I clicked deactivate account, FB showed be some random friends and said they would miss me!
Facebook has the right to use your picture in an advertisement. I find that disturbing. I'd imagine Barack Obama's account might have some useful images (they'd never do that, but it drives home my point).
They may never do that, but who else might? The agreement states that the rights are transferrable, may be sublicensed, etc., which I would imagine they would do in bulk. Plus, that content is now theirs forever...twenty years from now, fifty years from now, it could still be in use.
Then they need to make it explicit that they are retaining the right to store and access your data.
It would be an interesting bit of performance art for someone to delete their facebook account and then file a DMCA takedown notice if they could show that their profile pic was still available within facebook.
This is exactly how I'm planning on getting my information taken down. It seems quite hypocritical of them to say in the same Statement (effectively): "All your Content are belong to us" and at the same time, further down the page, "We respect IP rights."
I understand your argument, and from a technical aspect it makes sense.
But guess what? An overwhelming majority of people on Facebook aren't concerned with data mining activities, there are families on Facebook. People who connect with loved ones overseas, who don't want their photos and family memories saved on the Internet for the sake of technical operation.
Really. Look at it from their perspective: they do-not-care about code and crunching processes. To them, this is akin to a gov't wiretapping phones in the name of national preservation.
They may also be subject to changes in the law. In the EU telco's are required to retain information for 6-24 months on any electronic message, I'm wondering if the laws are shifting for big companies too.
I wouldn't doubt if governments will be forcing FB and other social networking sites to retain data for several years to help in any police or terrorism investigations.
Yuck. I had heard previously about how difficult it is to completely remove yourself from FB, but this getting unreasonable.
Also I have an issue with the article:
> Someone can still take your photo, slap it on Facebook, and now neither you nor the author of the photo can stop Facebook from using the photo in whichever way they please.
I doubt that that's the case. If someone takes something to which I have a copyright and then places it on Facebook without my approval, I would think I have legal recourse. Isn't this what a DMCA takedown notice is for? Unless I'm misreading that quote.
No you're absolutely correct. If someone takes your photo (I read about this for a childrens entertainer and someone duped her account) facebook will disable the persons account and likely depending on the situation may take extra steps (I believe in the case I'm thinking of, Facebook gave a list of the IP's and times the user had accessed the duplicate account from to the police in case they believed it was potentially criminal due to the nature of the womans job and the likely hood of the dupe being made by a pedophile).
Facebooks ToS explicitly state that they respect the IP rights of others and that they will remove any infringing content, or for repeat offenders their account will permanently be suspended (presumably their email will be banned too). It also says they do everything in accordance with the DMCA. The one thing people don't understand about the DMCA is that whilst it might be evil, it also protects individuals as much as companies because every single photo, sentence or anything you or I make or write are immediately copy protected in all western countries.
>> It also says they do everything in accordance with the DMCA. The one thing people don't understand about the DMCA is that whilst it might be evil, it also protects individuals as much as companies because every single photo, sentence or anything you or I make or write are immediately copy protected in all western countries.
If you photograph someone, they don't have copyright in the photograph. [1] But if some copyrighted thing appears in the photograph, the holder of that copyright might have legal rights.
Moreover, the subjects of photos can sue you for invasion of privacy -- or, depending on how you use the image, slander. Property owners can sue you for trespassing. And, in some parts of some countries, there is a "right of publicity":
... which prevents you from (e.g.) taking a photo of a well-known person, Photoshopping your product into their hands, and using the result for commercial purposes.
The end result is that professional photographers, videographers, and filmmakers try to get signed release forms from every recognizable person who appears in a shot that is to be used for a commercial purpose. [2] The documented existence of those release forms is a major reason why stock photos cost more than your brother's photographs of random pedestrians on the street.
---
[1] Have I mentioned in this thread that I'm not a lawyer? I'm not a lawyer.
I see it continues to include the phrase "subject only to your privacy settings" as Facebook asserts what it can do with your content. Now I wonder if that is as much of a problem as Facebook asserting it will not respect your privacy settings at all (which would be very worrisome indeed).
I see my reply below asking about this was read for the literal meaning of the too-brief words, rather than for my intended implication. My bad, for not being more clear. What I was trying to introduce to the learned discussion here is the idea that Facebook says, even after its revision to its ToS, that it will respect your privacy settings. So, if you have used the Facebook features to set your privacy setting so that only friends, or only a subset of friends, see most of your submitted content (as I did immediately upon signing up for Facebook), is this ToS change really that much of a worry? If you know how to set your Facebook privacy settings, and like the effect of those settings, the only people who have access to your submitted content are the same people to whom you have already shown it, right?
"Your best friend just got dumped by his cheating finance...brought to you by Carl's Jr." will not go over as well as Carl's Jr. intended.
But it is pretty interesting how they microtarget ads. I've seen my staunch republican friend login to facebook. She gets ads like "Do you feel the election was stolen? Voice your thoughts here."
Where as I get ads indie rock music sites and student loan "bail outs".
The timing of this article is ironic for me, since I just had a big argument with a friend about why I like Facebook less and less...
There's one thing about this that confuses me: with a change like this to the ToS, why didn't they alert me and make me confirm that I agree with the new terms?
Simple, because the old TOS said they didn't have to. And why would they? "Hey we just changed our TOS to take even more control over your stuff, are you still okay with that? Yes/No"
And if you're using Facebook now, you should be okay with the change because it's not like much has actually changed with regard to how FB is going to use/sell your data.
The timing of this article is ironic for me, since I just had a big argument with a friend about why I like Facebook less and less...
Nope. Not ironic.
Although... Mark Zuckerberg could have been eavesdropping with his ear to the wall, been shocked by what he heard, and just changed the company strategy to do whatever it took to make you happy again. Then it might be ironic!
I recently set up Facebook Connect on my poetry editor web app. When a user writes or updates a poem, they can have a link published in their news feed. Being very far from a lawyer, can anyone tell me whether the fact that the link is published to the feed now means that Facebook owns that the content on the other end under these same terms?
I noticed something about using the "Share" link, but I don't know if that's considered the same thing.
I am fairly sure that you are just mistaken. For example, Microsoft Windows's EULA does not, as far as I know, grant Microsoft any copyright license in your data. Maybe you can show me where I'm wrong?
What would you consider a fair action on MS's part? In this scenario I'll consider it a given that you have traced the loss of all of your data to a bug that Microsoft agrees exists and did in fact destroy all of your data.
I don't expect anything (and should not actually). If I lose my data due to a bad backup/updates policy it is my fault.
The question is not about MS. I've picked Windows because it has a huge user base.
My initial statement is equivalent to: if you take any software product that has many users then its legal docs effectively leave no rights to the end users. So it is not a big deal when Facebook changes its docs accordingly.
I understand that software companies are forced to adopt such policies to survive.
Therefore I rely on MS' good will that it tests updates before it releases them to the general public (even if it breaks all Windows boxes one day, people will be using it anyway).
Maybe you replied to my comment by mistake, but in case you meant to reply to my comment and not to somebody else's, a lack of liability for destroying data is not even close to the same thing as a copyright license.
Except that the other HN story linked to the source on Consumerist, while this one links to "Mashable" which is an article regurgitating the Consumerist story.
