Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Facebook Changes Tos
Posted 15 February 2009 - 09:26 PM
According to the article it looks like they've changed things so that they get full, unfettered use of anything you post there now. Forever. Even if you cancel your account. Makes me glad I never signed up there.
Posted 16 February 2009 - 10:26 AM
Posted 16 February 2009 - 03:17 PM
So if someone else publishes your picture to their account - say you were in someone's wedding picture that got posted in someone's account -Facebook has rights to that picture of you? OOOHHH, I don't like that!
Posted 16 February 2009 - 03:52 PM
Posted 16 February 2009 - 04:10 PM
My daughter used to have a Facebook account that she posted photos and stuff to all the time. The important part of that statement being that she used to post stuff to FB. Up until yesterday when I ran across this little news item. Now it'll all simply live on her own domain so that she has a bit more control.
It's not like I don't have hosting space or anything, so it was an easy choice for moi.
Posted 16 February 2009 - 05:05 PM
Posted 16 February 2009 - 06:17 PM
Posted 16 February 2009 - 06:34 PM
I'm sure FB's lawyers would have a completely different answer than a users lawyer would. I suspect their legal dept may be fielding a lot of those kinds of questions in the very near future. It looks like not too many people are happy about the change in policy.
As some have mentioned in the wider discussion, you can put pretty much anything in your TOS. However trying to enforce some things, and especially trying to make a change retroactive, can be a whole other story. It would be like me changing my TOS policy that I won't rent, sell or otherwise disseminate email addresses or other personal information of my customers. I could change that today if I felt like it and be completely okay selling info from customers who came by today and going forward. As long as I have a disclaimer in there that people need to agree to the TOS before becoming a customer. But if I sold customer data from years ago, when the agreement was different, I'd be SOL. Those older customers would have every right to haul me into court, and they'd win.
The part I found funniest was them having in the TOS that all users agree to arbitration instead of taking 'em to court. They can put it in there all they want, but if they get taken to court the court and FB doesn't show up to defend themselves because they have an arbitration clause they'd lose on a default judgment. If FB did show up the court would first have to determine if the Arbitration clause was reasonable and legal. Most of those Arbitration Only clauses fail to pass muster if someone is serious enough to contest them.
Posted 17 February 2009 - 11:07 AM
Posted 17 February 2009 - 11:17 AM
Worth baring in mind though that if someone else has taken the picture (i.e. a picture you are in) the photographer holds all rights to it, so the photographer was always able to do anything they liked with it, add to that the idea that ethically a photographer is allowed to snap you anywhere where you would be visible to the general public, and photographs of any individual have been open to complete abuse for years, personally I trust facebook more then I trust random people I don't know, and ex's, so all in all I'm not panicking (yet).
Posted 17 February 2009 - 07:13 PM
Unfortunately what FB is saying in their explanations thus far simply don't match up with what's in the TOS. And PR statements do not override the TOS agreement, at least not when lawyers get ahold of it. People who have to deal with protecting their copyright everyday are still up in arms, and rightfully so. Even though I don't FB myself I know of at least a dozen photographers who have pulled all of their stuff down from Facebook because they feel like they've been duped by the whole situation.
I just don't get why they're putting themselves through the exercise. If what they want is what they say they want in their post-debacle statements they have several TOS's they could model theirs after. It's not like they're the first such service that allows users to save and share information. Heck, they should have simply borrowed the MySpace TOS and been done with it!
Posted 17 February 2009 - 07:31 PM
Different subject, but that's not true actually Yoshimi.
There are many, many (many, many, many, many) situations where the photographer would not be able to do anything they liked with a photograph they shot. Even if it was a typical street scene. For instance, if the photographer tried to sell the photo it may well fall under the old Commercial Use ideal, where a model release would be required of each person in the shot. The same is true if a photo is used in such a way where the depiction of subject (be it a person or not) implies this subject advocates or sponsors an idea the photographer or publisher is trying to get across. Those are the two biggies, Commercial User and Advocacy.
There are also rather large differences if one is an Professional photographer or just a normal Joe snapping a picture. Pro's have much stricter standards that have to be met. And there's a difference if the person being photographed without prior consent is considered a Public Figure or not. Public figures tend to be free game while Mary Homemaker shopping in the store may not be. The bottom line for professional photog's is that they'd better get model releases if they ever intend to commercialize photo's they snap that have people in them. Otherwise they could find themselves unable to sell rights that they do not have (publishers almost always require model releases) or worse yet getting something published and then getting sued.
(My daughter is a photographer so I've had to bone up on these issues. Or at least figured I might as well bone up on the issues since I was the one paying the attorney fees to get the legal advice. )
Posted 03 March 2009 - 10:08 AM
So pretty much just as 90% of the Facebook "inhabitants" do already then
Posted 03 March 2009 - 01:22 PM
Too true Chris, based upon the very limited time I've spent there.
FTR, Facebook did a complete about face (pun intended) once the publicity surrounded their changes started to hit the mainstream media. As of the last time I checked a couple of weeks ago they reverted back to their original TOS. Unfortunately for them I have a feeling this little episode soured at least some people on the amount of trust they place in the FB service as a whole. I know a ton of photographers who used to have hundreds and thousands of images on FB will no longer put them there. The trust has been broken for some.
Thankfully for me, the daughter and many of her friends fall into that category. They don't trust FB anymore. Thankfully for them, I have spare domain names laying around and hosting they can use for free. So they now have their own vLog, where they know they absolutely control their copyright.
Posted 03 March 2009 - 04:10 PM
People shouldn't trust a service or site like Facebook or MySpace or Twitter or Google or anybody to always have the individual's best interests at heart. These are businesses, which are (presumably) in it to make money (as soon as some of them figure out a monetization strategy, at least). If it comes down to "what you want them to do" versus "what the law will let them get away with," and "what the law will let them get away with" will make them more money... well.
IMO, nobody in that situation should be too shocked. It's not as though there are no precedents.
There are way too many people out there today who "share" all sorts of stuff all over the place without much thinking about the implications or potential consequences. If this brouhaha in some way makes them stop and think twice, maybe take some steps to protect their rights (or their reputation, depending on what they're contemplating posting and where they're thinking about posting it), maybe post somewhere they control (or somewhere more private, or not post at all), it's not all bad.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users