Facebook wants the right to use and sell our content...

[skittles_of_SDC 0]

do they have that right?

Since you don't have to join Facebook and it's optional I would say they do. However I highly doubt most people had their friends sign model releases before taking photos of their friends which means they don't have the right to sell those photos. Therefore they don't have the right to give others permission to sell their photos with those people as subjects.

I could see how it would apply to pictures taken of yourself but if you took pictures of friends with no releases I don't see how this could be legal. Any attorneys out there with IP law experience that can shed some light on this for me?

The section in question:

Quote

2.3 For content that is covered by intellectual property rights (like photos and videos), 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, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of (“use”) any content you post on or in connection with Facebook. This license ends when you delete your content or your account.

source

[shropshire 0]

I wonder where the content resides (which country) so should the laws of the country where the content was uploaded FROM be used or the country(s) where the Server(s) are?

What about here on DZ.COM - who "owns" the content?

The interweb is a jolly complicated beast, and no mistake.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[skittles_of_SDC 0]

I don't know where the servers are but I know Facebook is governed by Califonia law.

[quade 3]

What that means, if I read it right, is that if you have set your permissions to share crap, you have give FB permission to distribute the crap. If you don't like it, you can leave and when you do so, you stop giving them permission.

It seems actually far LESS odious than what we do right here on dz.com. If you cancel your account here, we don't wipe the system of your postings.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 3]

Quote

What about here on DZ.COM - who "owns" the content?

You do. Of course, it's also your responsibility to clean up after yourself if you want to REMOVE it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[shropshire 0]

It's easier to PA someone and let someone else do the work

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 3]

Quote

It's easier to PA someone and let someone else do the work

Which is exactly why I sometimes don't.

I -LIKE- the idea of when a person has made a complete ass of themselves on-line for it being left for others to see. I think if some people realized that and understood that they do leave an on-line trail of crap where ever they go, they might tone things down a bit.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[shropshire 0]

I'll watch me step then

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[tigra 0]

Isn't that sort of old news and didn't they already back down on this? Monday or Tuesday maybe? It was on the news- I don't do facebook because I am over 20 and not a college student.

[skittles_of_SDC 0]

Kinda old news. but it came back up because they announced today their proposed new terms and that people can provide input before they put it up for a vote.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

d

I could see how it would apply to pictures taken of yourself but if you took pictures of friends with no releases I don't see how this could be legal. Any attorneys out there with IP law experience that can shed some light on this for me?

If I take a picture of you in public I can sell it all I want; I don't need your permission. I can also release it to facebook and they can sell it. That's what paparazzi do for a living.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

Quote

Kinda old news. but it came back up because they announced today their proposed new terms and that people can provide input before they put it up for a vote.

Isn't that the original TOS? I thought the new one was a lot more ridiculous - the new one let them keep the rights to it even after you removed the photos or closed the account.

FWIW lots more discussion of this (and other copyright issues) in Photg & Vid

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[skittles_of_SDC 0]

Quote

Quote

d

I could see how it would apply to pictures taken of yourself but if you took pictures of friends with no releases I don't see how this could be legal. Any attorneys out there with IP law experience that can shed some light on this for me?

If I take a picture of you in public I can sell it all I want; I don't need your permission. I can also release it to facebook and they can sell it. That's what paparazzi do for a living.

From what I recall from my photography class I don't think that's correct for the US. You can take a photo of someone in public and publish it or sell it for print but not to be used in ads (presumably the only thing facebook could sell them for). I think for the most part if it is being sold to be used in an ad you need a model release. There are obviously exceptions to this rule.

[ntrprnr 0]

Old story, and end result: Yes.

http://shankman.com/quick-thoughts-on-the-facebook-tos-insanity/

_______________
"Why'd you track away at 7,000 feet?"
"Even in freefall, I have commitment issues."

[bumgangster 0]

Ha Ha Ha Facebook was founded by a thief, what do you expect?
Also a great resource for the media and police.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

From what I recall from my photography class I don't think that's correct for the US. You can take a photo of someone in public and publish it or sell it for print but not to be used in ads (presumably the only thing facebook could sell them for). I think for the most part if it is being sold to be used in an ad you need a model release. There are obviously exceptions to this rule.

Hmm, you may be right there. I really have no idea what they would sell the pics of me for. Don't really care as I believe my public behavior is just that.

[banesanura 1]

Skittles- its not your photos they want to sell its your email address and which demographic you fit into.

They are going to sell it to "third party advertisers" which means the highest bidder. Resulting in *SPAM* woo whoo.

Its an additional revenue source for them.

When I worked at careerbuilder.com people used to hack into the system to steal peoples information to sell email lists ALL THE TIME.

www.nextmark.com is a major website where you can obtain and sell peoples information.

Craigslist- spammers and fakes are pretty much compling people's information to sell as leads. Resulting in the grey grey grey world called multi-level marketing and lead generation.

DMCA is the last major internet regulator the US has had in a LONG while and doesn't cover penalties for internet crimes.

And infridegment intellectual property rights- in court- is a HARD battle to fight. When I worked for careerbuilder we were fighting sharebuilder.com for infridgement of intellectual property rights. The case is still going on and its been 2 years.

Hardest part is trying to pin point where exactly the lead came from, who's selling it, re-selling, and with the use of proxy's its almost impossible.

Basically- facebook wants you to be aware that they are going to resell your information and pool it into lead generating companies to cover their asses.

Best bet- is to change your facebook email to a fake one or one used just for spam. OR you can always find a program to collect information and resell. If you can't beat em join em right?

Best Girl Scout Ever.