Facebook quietly updates Terms of Service to give it legal ownership of all user content
I made this!
"Beleaguered social networking website Facebook has angered privacy campaigners by surreptitiously awarding itself a perpetual licence over everything its members post on their pages..."
(, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 22:39, Reply)
There are a lot of things to be concerned about as a member of facebook.
Still going to use it though, and they know it.
(
Zuowan, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 22:44,
Reply)
I can understand that. I'm probably going to delete it though as under the new TOS I'm basically relinquishing ownership of any articles / creative writing I produce. And the same applies to people who use Facebook to showcase their photography / artwork.
They're just shooting themselves in the foot - all this will do is boost the popularity of other social sites like DeviantArt etc.
(, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 22:50, Reply)
Utter shite that doesn't steal the copyright to your intellectual property...
(, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 23:11, Reply)
I don't really care too much about them using my stuff so long as they aren't actually selling it or using it in adverts.
What I'm more concerned about is their data collection techniques and links to the CIA.
(
Zuowan, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 23:17,
Reply)
If i had anything of value to post online
i wouldnt put it on facebook
(
executiverocker only wears C&A, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 23:47,
Reply)
I thought the point of these additions
were that they continued to own whatever you uploaded there even if you delete your account.
What Facebook "owns" seems very open to interpretation, like the UK police photographs thing. I guess you'll have to wait until they try to do something evil to find out how much satanic power they actually have.
On the other hand Facebook is a pretty rubbish place to showcase your art/writing in the first place, unless you only want your friends to see it.
(, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:56, Reply)
i question
i don't ever really place anything original on my facebook, don't host photos bar a couple of crappy ones i#'m not that fussed about. Though i have a 'myflickr' app which doesn't exactly host my photos on there, just thumbnail and link. Would that mean they have licence under these? I'm a novice to all legal mumbo jumbo.
Should i delete the app?
(, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 23:10, Reply)
Just checked the TOS (http://www.facebook.com/terms.php) and I can't find anything about apps, so I'm not sure.
But I did see that people who use a 'share' link on their blog relinquish ownership, even if it's a third party that does the sharing. So my advice would be yes, assume Facebook will claim legal ownership of everything in your apps. Maybe check the specific terms given when you install the app?
(, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 23:52, Reply)
they don't claim ownership
they simply claim inalienable rights to publish and/or edit your work as they see fit. It in no way lessens your ownership, and you certainly don't relinquish ownership.
As the creator of a work, you hold the original copyright. They, under the new shitty TOS, will claim the right to use it, royalty free, as they see fit. They could not, for example, turn around and tell you to remove your image from any site other than facebook, because you have the copyright, they do not. And they cannot prevent you earning money from your work.
What it does do, is stop you claiming any money from them, should they earn money off of your work.
(
Damocles wants no part of your debauchery, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:00,
Reply)
Apologies, I meant you relinquish *exclusive* ownership (to profit from etc).
Btw according to CNN the new rules don't apply to apps: "Facebook's terms of service do say that 'User Content and Applications/Connect Sites' are exempt from its claims on content ownership."
edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/17/facebook.terms.service/index.html
(, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:11, Reply)
thanks for the link,
it clarifies a lot of the mess.
Although you do still maintain exclusive ownership. Nothing is relinquished whatsoever. FB do not in any way own your work or the copyright to it, they merely retain a license to it. It's no different than if you placed some photos on a stock image site, and someone bought a license to use them in a commercial endeavour. The only difference is that you are not selling the license, you are giving it to FB in order to be allwoed to use FB.
(
Damocles wants no part of your debauchery, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:42,
Reply)
so last time i checked
when you upload a photo, the original is not shown, but a much lower quality version, presumably to keep the size down, so i wanna know if ownership applies to the original or to the one that's actualy shown
(
wjh31, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 23:30,
Reply)
Resizing does not change the image
so unless the image is resized so much as to no longer resemble the original, then the copyright exists for both images as a single entity. Bizarrely, there is an actual percentage figure of how different an image must be before it is no longer protected by the original copyright. Feck knows how they decide that though.
In another bizarre copyright/IP mess, if you were to make a painting of a celebrity that is too lifelike, then you would not be allowed to sell it because it would violate the trademark they have on their likeness.
Crazy, crazy world.
(
Damocles wants no part of your debauchery, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 23:55,
Reply)
There is a small flaw in their plan for world domination.
They haven't made their users sign or click to accept the new terms, therefore any terms introduced after the user signed up are legally worthless.
Still a big hairy load for new users, but existing users are safe.
(
Damocles wants no part of your debauchery, Tue 17 Feb 2009, 23:52,
Reply)
So.....
...lets just say I cut n paste a pic off b3ta that in actual fact was a cut n paste from another site, that (as it turns out) was ACTUALLY a pic from ANOTHER site. Are they saying 'cos it's on FB it's theirs?
I don't think so......do you?????
(
jonbontempi, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:10,
Reply)
actually,
that's exactly what they're saying.
(
Sir Sand GOBLIN ^popular page dis, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:21,
Reply)
It'll be interesting to see this tested in court.
Most likely it'll be a case of make-a-fuss-and-we'll-stop-using-it-otherwise-we-don't-care. Which is the way of the world now, innit?
(
Zuowan, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:28,
Reply)
they're not saying it's theirs,
they're saying they're free to use it.
In bontempi's example, if there was a legal contention over the ownership of the work, then facebook's TOS would cover their asses, and the person doing the upload would be in the shit. The original creator of the work would have complete ownership still, and if any royalties were in dispute, it would fall on the uploader to settle them.
These kind of "ownership" TOS's are commonplace all over the web, but because facebook is so popular, and because they did it on the quiet, there's uproar from the various "the sky is falling" blogs and news outlets.
If you really want to be pissed - consider that almost all work related contracts in the design, media, IT, research, and several other fields will say any work you create on work time/resources is 100% the company's property. Imagine how many b3ta pics have been made on work computers, yet we jump down the throats of Zoo/Nuts etc as soon as some bell-end from the smelly public emails it to them.
(
Damocles wants no part of your debauchery, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:32,
Reply)
To be fair your workplace don't use these things for profit.
On top of that they are paying you. Albeit probably for something else.
It's a fair point though.
(
Zuowan, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:35,
Reply)
you'll be surprised how often
someone loses out on a shedload of cash because they made all or part of something on work time (which includes breaks, overtime, and simply being on the premises) and then that company discovers it, nabs it, and sells it.
The worst cases are when the creator has been making tons of money, then the company discovers they own the work, and demand the employee cough up every penny they made so far. Then fire them for using work resources for non-work stuff.
Copyright/IP laws are a bitch if you don't watch your actions carefully. They can really fuck you over
(
Damocles wants no part of your debauchery, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:40,
Reply)
my old work contract
had a stipulation that and "concept, idea or creation" i had "during work hours" was theirs. IDEA?!! hmm i'm having a slash and i think of a genius end to world poverty? Theirs.
i fought good and hard against that one.
(, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 10:32, Reply)
Actually here's a breakdown of Facebook's new TOS against numerous others like Myspace, Flickr & Youtube. Facebook comes out worse off on multiple counts: amandafrench.net/2009/02/16/facebook-terms-of-service-compared/
(, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:37, Reply)
yeah but if you read through
those examples, you'll see they're all basically the same. They all get unlimited license to use your content. The only difference is that FB's wording is fecking awful, and clearly written by a lawyer who doesn't understand the softly, softly approach.
Because those other companies explicitly spell out that you retain copyright (which you also do with FBs new TOS), everyone thinks they're being dead nice about it. In reality, they're doing what they think they can get away with legally, and covering their own asses in the process. They're just smart enough to play the words around until it sounds like the user is the one getting the good deal.
(
Damocles wants no part of your debauchery, Wed 18 Feb 2009, 0:48,
Reply)