Another Blogger - Latest Comments in Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

Haruo Chikamori — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:36:44 -0000

I would be very hesitant of even putting up links on Facebook even with them going back to the old TOS.

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

You see the underline "in connection with". That gives them a rights grab on anything you post on Facebook up to and including blog-links. When you post a link on Facebook, you have "posted on" and the link content is published "in connection with" Facebook's internet protocol thereby allowing them to sneak in and grab any content on the posted link. Confirm it with a lawyer, but that means I'm out as far as posting any content or links. I will not be putting any of my stock photography on Facebook. If they want to see them, they can go to my blog.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

Photography — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:19:18 -0000

Just read that TwitPic does the same f'ked up thing as Facecrook

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

Photography — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:17:44 -0000

What does that mean in English?

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

Photography — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 16:13:49 -0000

I think your group got deleted.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

Anne Kathrine Petteroe — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:43:52 -0000

For those of you still on Facebook I have started a group against the new TOS.
Feel free to join..
http://www.facebook.com/gro...

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

KramNamloc — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:56:43 -0000

MikeRichter said, "So what that they own any of the "original" content I put on Facebook. Everybody I know is on facebook, even my father!"
Some of us make our living from our content. If these corporations aren't watched carefully, they will own everything and then we'll have to pay for our own content. Without our content FB is nothing. They owe us something, no?

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

ahockley — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:37:18 -0000

I pulled some contact information but my account has now been deactivated.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

JP_Voilleque — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:39:00 -0000

There is always going to be a balance between user rights and service providers. Particularly so long as there is an ad revenue model in place, services need to know that they "own" something beyond the demographics. Content fits that bill. I'm wondering if there are some interactions with some of the more egregious DMCA decisions that influence the decision to include provisions like this...Hmm...(wanders off to his stack of recent cyberlaw updates).

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

iamjoe — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:20:18 -0000

I might be wrong but
"however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content"

Seems like a major CYA loop hole to save them in court.

Also you never really delete a FB account they just freeze them. So if you change your mind you can turn it back on like nothing ever happened.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

ahockley — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:21:29 -0000

Bob (above) asked specifically about Flickr and I checked out their ToS, seems fine with me. SmugMug's terms indicate "by posting any Content or otherwise participating in any Interactive Area, you grant SmugMug a perpetual, nonexclusive, royalty-free right to use, publish, distribute, reproduce, perform, adapt and display the Content on the Site" - they explicitly state that the license is only for the use of the material on the site. Facebook's is overly broad without any restrictions on use.

If you have some examples of other services which claim the right to unlimited commercial use of submitted content, I'd love to check it out and will certainly rant against it just like I have against Facebook :)

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

ahockley — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:16:07 -0000

I checked out those terms. From what I can see, the relevant portion seems to be section 9b: "With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services."

I interpret that to mean that when I submit my Flickr content under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license (which is what I use), that it gives Yahoo the right to display it on Flickr or use it under that license. Section 2 of the agreement specifically addresses the fact that Yahoo may display advertising along with content that is submitted.

In short, it's a much more explicit list of terms. Nowhere does it say that Yahoo gets a license to do anything they want with my photos.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

ahockley — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:12:10 -0000

As long as you understand and agree to their terms, go right ahead using Facebook. I'm not willing to give up my right to unlimited commercial use of my content.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

ahockley — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:09:09 -0000

I think you're misunderstanding the "walled garden" term. Services can support open standards and data portability and still respect privacy.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

JustinS — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:41:28 -0000

Those two passages contradict each other. How can you say you have an "irrevocable, perpetual" license, then go on to claim that the "license granted will automatically expire?" Seems to me that an "irrevocable, perpetual" license, by definition, couldn't expire.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

Kathleen McDade — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:39:52 -0000

That said, I think if you don't use Facebook, it IS a perfectly good reason to quit!

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

Kathleen McDade — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:29:56 -0000

Like Gaines, I use Facebook differently from how I use Twitter. That's where I interact with family and mostly non-local friends. I have some overlap w/ Twitter contacts, but I decided a while ago not to friend-request anyone else from Twitter, because why bother? (if you request me, that's fine, though).

Also, I don't put anything important on Facebook. A few family photos, etc., big deal. I link to my blog posts, and don't post the whole thing on Facebook. So the TOS doesn't really worry me. With Chrome, that was weird, because who wants Google to have rights to EVERYTHING you do in a browser? Blog posts, email, photos, websites you've designed...I don't think so. And that wasn't their intent, so they changed it.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

Bob — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:04:54 -0000

I see you have a Flickr account, make sure you read the Yahoo! Terms of Service too...
(http://info.yahoo.com/legal...

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

Gaines Kergosien — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:31:50 -0000

While I'm all about reading the fine print, I think the most important thing is the character of the people and what actions have been taken in the past. I know of no infringements on people's intellectual property or unauthorized reproduction of people's photos/posts. If you're aware of such cases, please post them. Otherwise this sounds more like someone who doesn't care for the system looking for a reason why everyone else should abandon it as well.

Also keep in mind that Terms of Service are not the law. They have to be upheld by the law and nobody (company or user) should assume that just because something is in the ToS it is legally binding.

The so called "walled garden" approach that Facebook takes is necessary for many of us to feel comfortable sharing photos and information about our lives that we don't want posted publicly on for anonymous internet users. Facebook is a place to keep in touch with friends, Twitter is a place to meet new friends and keep informed. They shouldn't be compared as they don't serve the same purpose.

That's my $0.02

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

Andy Piper — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:56:25 -0000

I believe that the whole point of the user agreement is that YOU agree that they CAN do exactly that i.e. use your pictures of your kids. It may well be damaging to their reputation, but by agreeing to the ToS you are agreeing that they can do that.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

ahockley — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:23:22 -0000

How is the picture any different? It says that I can leave Facebook (which I'm doing) and that by doing so their license to use my content will end.

I never said that Facebook claimed ownership or copyright... only that they're claiming an overly-broad license to use the content.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

ahockley — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:21:48 -0000

I completely agree there's a CYA angle. But that angle could be a little less broad (see my reply to Jason Mauer above)

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

ahockley — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:20:24 -0000

I did read that. I never said that I couldn't leave Facebook or that I had an issue with that portion. I have an issue with the fact that anything posted on Facebook is fair game for them until I leave.

Hence, I'm leaving.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

ahockley — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:19:36 -0000

I'm in agreement. I'm sure there's a CYA aspect to it. It reminds me of the excitement over the original Google Chrome EULA, which said something to the effect of Google had the ability to redisplay and use your content. After a bit of discussion, the EULA was clarified that Google had those rights only as it related to displaying and using your content within the context of the Chrome browser.

Facebook could make a similar change to their terms that specified that the commercial angle only applied to displaying the content on the site adjacent to advertising. I doubt anyone (including me) would have any serious objections if things were spelled out. Right now the license is pretty much wide-open, which is my concern.

And yes, it's good that if folks delete content, Facebook says that the license ends.

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

ahockley — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:15:19 -0000

Definitely a good question. What about imported blog posts? Photos? Tweets?

Re: Facebook’s Rights Grab – I’m Out

ahockley — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:14:27 -0000

I'm certainly a fan of data portability, the open stack, etc. and I hope that in the future we'll see more services embrace open standards and realize that I am the one who should control my data.