# Facebook image theft



## Overread (Feb 16, 2009)

Putting this up here in disucssions as this ties in directly with image theft in modern times on the net

If Facebooks original image rights were nothing special - claiming ownership for all uploaded content until you deleted it from their site - at which point rights reverted to you again - they have now changed things for the worst (For the public)

British Journal of Photography - Facebook asserts perpetual rights on uploaded photos

On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information | Facebook
In short they say that they own your copywrite materail now - and for ever if it arrives on their networking service. They say it will never be used outside of facebook, but they have left that door very open for themselves to change their minds if they choose to (oh and they don't have to tell you they just do it)

for a slightly amusing (though risky) assessment (risky will appear at some point - I just know it will ) read here:
Amateur Photographer & What Digital Camera: Get your snaps off Facebook!
ps - do spread the image around - the more that take it up the more facebook will have to listen


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 16, 2009)

Almost... if you read their "rules", they own everything... including what is on their backups and archives.  If they or you delete it from facebook, the rights don't come back to you, it stays theirs pretty much as long as they have backups of it... in other words, you've lost your rights to your pics forever.

Yes, I have a facebook account (out of necessity, trust me, I loathe the service) but I won't put one single picture there, hell, not even an avatar!  I don't deal with thieves and extortionists on any level and I will not give them the chance to abuse me in any manner.


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2009)

yep it was their old rules that returned rights to you upon deletion from the system - the change is to remove that clause. 
and yes I keep an account as well (its a handy self updating address book!)


----------



## Garbz (Feb 16, 2009)

They can have the rights to my drunken out of focus profile picture of me pulling a funny face.

If they can somehow make a profit from it then I could only congratulate them.


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2009)

I wonder - will you say the same when its your drunken face on the next national anti drugs campaign poster?


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 16, 2009)

I wonder how they can do that... and in all openness get away with it?


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2009)

the TC? well ask yourself how many members of the service actually read the TC fully and clearly  (and understand it all). Heck since noticing the Photobucket TC I have met several photographers who have missed it when they signed up for the service.
So with that and the very quiet announcment of the change I think very few people would notice it.
They would only notice when they see their image somewhere and then they have no leg to stand on - they agreed to the TC when they signed up. Legally they can't do anything


----------



## jstuedle (Feb 16, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> I wonder how they can do that... and in all openness get away with it?



There is a movement to liberalize the copyright laws and give the public more and more access to our work. I expect to see more of our Copy-Rights to be eroded along with other rights in the near future. The digital revolution enables access of everything from our images to our medical records. Nothing is sacred. Anything that can be stored on a remote server can be accessed by any determined soul. Be they a hacker, corporation for profit or government bureaucrat.


----------



## invisible (Feb 16, 2009)

I don't like Facebook at all. That being said, I don't think the clause is there for Facebook to abuse their users freely but likely to protect themselves. Against what? I can't possibly know, but I would assume it has to do with a problem that Facebook (or another monster website) had in the past. 

I can't imagine a scenario in which Facebook would profit or otherwise utilize  their users' images for anything. As astute as the legal team at Facebook probably is, they are definitely aware that a class action would cost the company millions of dollars, a PR nightmare, and hundreds of thousands of users closing their accounts. It's simply not enough for this clause to just exist, buried somewhere in the terms of use; a clause of this nature (if Facebook really wanted to use the images) needs to be conspicuous for any judge to accept it and rule in favour of the company not the victims of the abuse.

I wouldn't even upload my drunken-face photo to their website, though.


----------



## Enough Already (Feb 16, 2009)

Because, like all legal T&C's, are written in legal jibberish so that simple minded people like myself cant really understand what they are saying, can someone cut and paste the section of the contract that says they have the rights to all images. I have just removed mine in any case, but I would like to understand what it is that they are actually saying in regards to user content.

Thanks


----------



## sxesweets (Feb 17, 2009)

*Licenses*

You are solely responsible for the User Content that you Post on or through the Facebook Service. You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses.
If you own or control a website, you may place Facebook's


----------



## jstuedle (Feb 17, 2009)

invisible said:


> I can't imagine a scenario in which Facebook would profit or otherwise utilize  their users' images for anything. As astute as the legal team at Facebook probably is, they are definitely aware that a class action would cost the company millions of dollars, a PR nightmare, and hundreds of thousands of users closing their accounts. It's simply not enough for this clause to just exist, buried somewhere in the terms of use; a clause of this nature (if Facebook really wanted to use the images) needs to be conspicuous for any judge to accept it and rule in favour of the company not the victims of the abuse.
> I wouldn't even upload my drunken-face photo to their website, though.



To me it's not a matter of FaceBook covering there butt, but they now have  digital copies of my property and could sell them to a stock agency. Share them  with another online service, the government, or create there own stock photo  service. For me it's a matter of principal. (That pic of you smooching someone  of the same gender in a bar could be searched and found by a perspective  employer. Costing you a valuable job sometime in the future, maybe 20 years down  the road.)


Let's examine a recent event that was in the  news. A-Rod lied to Katie Coric and took steroids. How did the media find out?  Some years ago the league tested/polled the players in what was supposed to be a  blind study/poll.  It was at a time when steroids were not banned, but the  league was concerned and wanted to know if the use of steroids was by more than  5% of the players tested. As mentioned, the study was supposed to be blind and  the tests destroyed after the findings tallied. The results were entered into a  database WITH names and all other associated data. Someone in the media searched  and found the data and could prove that A.R. lied to a member of guess who, the  media. Yes, he lied and did something that was at the time looked down on but not  a violation of league rules or law. So someone has now violated the law to play  gottcha and won't be prosecuted for it. The real legal issue has been diverted  away from.


Facebook could be considered part of the media, if you want to  stretch it a little. I believe facebook is privately owned. But who is to say  what their intentions are with your data in the long term. Or what would happen  to that data if and when they are sold.

Another example. (please don't  take this as a political argument for one side or the other, this is just the  way I observed the facts) A private citizen is out playing catch with his son  and a politician stumping for votes walks up to him with media cameras rolling.  The citizen asks a question and the politician stumbles a bit and gives an  answer that some find telling as to his hidden intensions. Half a country away a  sympathetic state worker of the same party does a search usng government computers and data. It turns up the private guy owes a few thousand dollars on a tax lean. The media uses that  information that was illegally obtained and released to them to destroy the  citizen instead of probing the public official as to his true intentions.This data was used to redirect the argument and coverage to fit an  agenda. 

In both of these cases data was stored and supposed to be kept  private. In the latter case a proven felony was committed. In days gone by these  records would be on paper locked in a file cabinet somewhere. Now the data can  be copied and distributed world-wide in seconds. Once it's done, legal or not  the damage is done. We used to keep our negatives safe, one copy and knew where  they were at all times. 

My point is no matter it be images, medical  data, tax records, whatever. If it is stored on a computer somewhere it can be  sold, stolen, or "shared" with someone violating your privacy and/or  copyrights.

I know many of my images are "out there" and profitted from. It's impossible to know how many of what and where. That is the nature of the beast we have created and indulge every day. I fear soon it will be an ever increasing problem in all aspects of our lives. I for one am fortunate that I have lived most of my life already, I have much less to be fearfull of than the younger generation.


----------



## Battou (Feb 17, 2009)

It's wrong, We have to have a similar clause in our Terms of Use, I'll break it down and explain it as best I can. It won't be perfect since elements differ from site to site.



> 4 - Summary of Submission Agreement and User Obligations
> 
> Under penalty of administrative action by PL staff, by submitting content to Photo Lucidity, you hereby swear:
> 
> ...



With out this we simply can not display it, period. As for use in advertisement, that is where it gets trickey and becomes more about the people running the site and varies from site to site. I can not describe facebooks intent in this department as I do not use/nor work for facebook. I can however explain and demonstrate how Photo Lucidity does it. Basically this is licencing the site to advertise it self with the works you have uploaded to the site to attract a userbase. This licence simply allows us to do things like this and a few others including (but not limmited to) use in off site banner ads and the like. (We do not employ any ads of that sort though, we'd prefer to keep it simple and use the same drab banner seen in my signature below.) This use is limited to advertising for the site it is on that it's copyright holder is a member of. It does not however give us the right to sell it to Virgin Moble or who ever wants it to advertise their crap. Our Site does not have any subscription fees or any ot that crap, we are not going to making any money from any new users that came as a result of any advertising methoed used. Additionally, For the images in the account linked above, with the exception of three (two are mine, one a verbal agreement with my sister) Despite the clause in the TOS, I personally made contact on site and requested and recieved written permission to display them in that manor, in other words we choose to ask anyway.

Now where facebook fucked up is the irrevocable, perpetual nonsence. I don't care what anyone says, the copyright holder has the right to revoke any licence they grant, that is plan and simple. They then go on to pile perpetual onto it implying that it is unending. Now to clarify the only reason I can concieve for this is on the database. On Photo Lucidity when an image is deleted, it is not removed from the database and technically still on the site, however it is hidden from view of non staff members (Main Site moderators and administrators can still view the image provided they know the PID, Deviant Art does the same thing). Now since we are broke we have to periodically recycle space and do mass purges to free up some space, at this point all traces of any deleted imagery and/or accounts is gone completely, So unless Facebook is made of money and has server space growing out of their ass, that is a bold faced lie. The rest of it is standard issue ass coverage made extra wordy found everywhere else on the internet and with the exception to the irrevocable, perpetual nonsence, is in fact no different than the ones Photo Lucidity, PhotoBuket, flicker and the like use. They drop the the irrevocable part and it's all legal.


@ Enough Already, Above I have broken down some of the legal jibberish, below is the unaltered copypaste of the TOS


			
				Facebook TOS said:
			
		

> You are solely responsible for the User Content that you Post on or through the Facebook Service. You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses.
> 
> If you own or control a website, you may place Facebook's share link button, logo and/or text (a "Share Link"), including all trademarks therein, on your website for the sole purpose of enabling users to Post links or content from your website on the Facebook Service. By offering a Share Link on your website, you agree, represent and warrant that you will not place a Share Link on any page containing content that would violate these Terms if Posted on the Facebook Service. The rights granted in this paragraph may be revoked by us at any time in our sole discretion, and upon such termination, you will immediately remove all Share Links from your website.


----------



## Arch (Feb 17, 2009)

I have a facebook account... and i have some decent images on there.

The thing im not getting about this whole arguement is that, ok facebook have the right to use my low rez image (on what?.. i doubt they ever will) but isn't this the same as putting your images up on any forum just as this?
People can still right click 'save as' my image and do as they please but they cannot contact me and demand a high rez version.
This is how im reading the facebook rules... if they have the right to contact me and demand a full rez image for printing use, then damn straight im taking them down, but i don't read anything that says that.
So from my point of view its like 'so what' they have a low rez copy of one of my images *shrug*. So does anyone else who liked one of my images and saved it.

If some one can find something that says they have the right to demand a 'proper' copy of the image then please do tell me as i am interested to know if this is the case.


----------



## abraxas (Feb 17, 2009)

Interesting.  It seems best to have your own virtual server and not rely on 'free' services.


----------



## Battou (Feb 17, 2009)

Arch said:


> I have a facebook account... and i have some decent images on there.
> 
> The thing im not getting about this whole arguement is that, ok facebook have the right to use my low rez image (on what?.. i doubt they ever will) but isn't this the same as putting your images up on any forum just as this?
> People can still right click 'save as' my image and do as they please but they cannot contact me and demand a high rez version.
> ...



Two problems: 

The first comes down to what Enough Already said, common folk are just misreading it, this answers question as to why you are not seeing it, because you are reading it correctly. This is likely a shoddy attempted clarification error on their part. However naturally the situation grows out of proportion and those who are not versed in legal jibberish assume the worst and go from there perpetuating the ideaology and ensuing arguement that they can do whatever they want when they want.


The second lies in the fact they state that the licence is perminate and copyright holder can not revoke the licence to display whatever images the copyright holder has uploaded be they low rez or what ever. As I mentioned earlier that is wrong, this gets those who know how to read them into an uproar because it implies that even if you remove your works from the site they can continue to display them. It is in those two little words that makes it different from a forum such as this, As it is worded they are basically saying you can not delete your images once you uploaded them ever, where as on a site like this you can remove imagery at any time. It is in what is implied that the OP was correct in they are claiming rights to the copies of what is placed on their servers that the copyright holder can not revoke. Since people are removing photos enmasse from facebook, I find it safe to say this is a case poor choice of words on the part of facebooks administration staff and is not truly in effect as it is written.


----------



## Overread (Feb 17, 2009)

Arch said:


> I have a facebook account... and i have some decent images on there.
> 
> The thing im not getting about this whole arguement is that, ok facebook have the right to use my low rez image (on what?.. i doubt they ever will) but isn't this the same as putting your images up on any forum just as this?
> People can still right click 'save as' my image and do as they please but they cannot contact me and demand a high rez version.
> ...



I have not come accross anything which suggests that they can demand a highres version of your shot - all they own is the version that you upload to their service. As for the legal side I feel that even if the shots are 99% total trash on the site a legal clause like this should still not be allowed. Theft is theft it should not matter if what is stolen is a happy snap off a mobile phone or a world class shot taken on a hassy. 

I find it hard to belive that its a wording error on the part of facebook - legal teams are not clueless and the words are clear in their intent. IF they truly intend not to sell on the images why then have wording that specifically allows for this?

As for the general theft of images by saving them off the net yes that will take place if your data is on the net, but you retain the right to sue the person if they then go and try to profit off your image of if it gets used for something you find disagreeable (lets say that mobile phone shot of you drunk at a party ends up as the next national image for an anti drugs campagin - it could very easily happen if they were to sell the images)


----------



## bigtwinky (Feb 17, 2009)

If there is a change in the agreement, should we not of all had to re-agree to the new wording?

I know many of us just click I ACCEPT without reading, but the few times I've had Terms changed after I accepted on other sites, I would have to re-accept the new terms.


----------



## MikeBcos (Feb 17, 2009)

bigtwinky said:


> If there is a change in the agreement, should we not of all had to re-agree to the new wording?
> 
> I know many of us just click I ACCEPT without reading, but the few times I've had Terms changed after I accepted on other sites, I would have to re-accept the new terms.



Somewhere in the terms and conditions will be a clause stating that you agree to read and accept any future changes to those terms and conditions.


----------



## Village Idiot (Feb 17, 2009)

And if my friend manages to get a high res copy of one of my photos and uploads it on facebook without my permission, then they're commiting copyright infringement and their EULA is moot.

I didn't give any one permission. They stole it, hosted on Facebook, and facebook is helping to facilitate the crime.


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 17, 2009)

If you put up a photo with your copyright on it, do they then own your copyright and thereby everything that has your copyright on it?

Shame I'm not a hacker.  LOL


----------



## Overread (Feb 17, 2009)

they don't own the copywrite - they just get a no limits and royalty free licence to use the image. So you can still sell the image on if you choose to - but of course they  can as well - to anyone for any use they wish


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 17, 2009)

I suppose if you really want to have your photos on FaceBook, do 2 important things to protect yourself.

First, FB shrinks all pics to a maximum of 606 pixels on the long side.  So, first of all, save your pics at the lowest res that you can live with and make them exactly 606 pixels on the long side.  Second... watermark them... nice bigger than average watermarks.  Then, if they want, what much can they do with a watermarked 606 pixel wide image?  Well some things, of course, but a LOT less than if you are foolishly uploading full-sized JPGs and letting the FB engine resize the pic for you (their resize engine sucks, BTW, and makes your pics look like crap, IMHO).

Me... I am sticking to what I say... they get nothing from me, not even a blurry tiny avatar.


----------



## Overread (Feb 17, 2009)

so far only flickr seems to operate good online image resizing service - at least its resized images look decent when compared to the original and they don't seem to oversharpen either which is good. 

I do agree even if the uses of such images are limited (don't just think of printing a 600pixel image is very usable on the internet even if its low res) and even if they are not prize winning quality that still does not mean they get the rights to take them.


----------



## Neuner (Feb 17, 2009)

Not sure how this can all be.  I mean, on FB I just saw a U2 Facebook page.  It has their pictures, songs and videos.  Now you know there is no way that Island or U2 would let FB get away with making money on 'Where the Streets Have No Name' so there definitely has to be a way around it, a way to fight it or their agreement has no merit.

The other item I don't get is how you have the option to have your images and content viewable to only friends and not the public.  If Facebook makes any of this public can't they be held liable?  From my experience, the ones with the more or better lawyers win (OJ).


----------



## MikeBcos (Feb 17, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> I suppose if you really want to have your photos on FaceBook, do 2 important things to protect yourself.
> 
> First, FB shrinks all pics to a maximum of 606 pixels on the long side.  So, first of all, save your pics at the lowest res that you can live with and make them exactly 606 pixels on the long side.  Second... watermark them... nice bigger than average watermarks.  Then, if they want, what much can they do with a watermarked 606 pixel wide image?  Well some things, of course, but a LOT less than if you are foolishly uploading full-sized JPGs and letting the FB engine resize the pic for you (their resize engine sucks, BTW, and makes your pics look like crap, IMHO).
> 
> Me... I am sticking to what I say... they get nothing from me, not even a blurry tiny avatar.



I do have quite a few photos on Facebook, but, none of them are exactly "good photographs". Plus, I shoot Raw+jpeg basic, all my uploaded photos come from the basic jpg, they are all sized to 800 longest edge before uploading.

If Facebook want to use one of my low-res, tiny images and sell it good luck to them. And if they ever do and I find out about it I'll probably just ask the buyer if they would be interested in a high res version for a very reasonable rate!


----------



## Battou (Feb 17, 2009)

Overread said:


> I find it hard to belive that its a wording error on the part of facebook - legal teams are not clueless and the words are clear in their intent. IF they truly intend not to sell on the images why then have wording that specifically allows for this?



The problem here is this, These are not written by Leagl teams, they are often written by site staff, it is for this very reason the TOS page for Photo Lucidity has not been updated since 2006, I don't want to make a mistake like this and end up with the same reactions from users.


----------



## invisible (Feb 17, 2009)

Battou said:


> These are not written by Leagl teams, they are often written by site staff


They are drafted by legal teams when the site is a multibillion dollar company like Facebook.


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 17, 2009)

Battou said:


> The problem here is this, These are not written by Leagl teams, they are often written by site staff, it is for this very reason the TOS page for Photo Lucidity has not been updated since 2006, I don't want to make a mistake like this and end up with the same reactions from users.




Not likely.  You can't just make up laws; even though Facebook is a private service, you still have to operate within the confines of the law.  

Besides, as posted in the other thread - this is all hysteria over nothing.


----------



## Battou (Feb 18, 2009)

invisible said:


> They are drafted by legal teams when the site is a multibillion dollar company like Facebook.



You are going to have to provide me indisputable proof that this one was infact written by an outside legle team. In Facebooks Official statement they say "We", Unless otherwise noted, all first-person pronouns ("we", "us") used in website Policy refer to applicable site staff members, and all second-person pronouns ("you") refer to the registered member of the applicable site and/or the unregistered visitor to the applicable site. They also go on to say "We're at an interesting point in the development of the open online world where these issues are being worked out. It's difficult terrain to navigate and we're going to make some missteps"  I think that only makes my case of poor choice of words on the part of facebooks administration staff more plauseable, I mean thay come right out and say We are not exactly sure how to go about this so we might screw up somewhere along the lines.

On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information | Facebook



ANDS! said:


> Besides, as posted in the other thread - this is all hysteria over nothing.




I have posted the same thing in this thread.


----------



## jstuedle (Feb 18, 2009)

I see it as being very simple. When you buy a software program and open the disk wrapper, you have just agreed to the EULA. When you cash one of those little checks that come in the mail to reimburse you for the first month of account protection on your credit card balance, you just agreed to sign up for the service. And when you open a facebook account you have just surrendered all rights to anything you post there. When the terms of service say something like "by clicking you agree" you will abide by all terms of that agreement. And if it advised the terms can be adjusted without prior notice, so be it. And if the terms are changed to say all © to all material posted is theirs alone and forever, your screwed.


----------



## Garbz (Feb 18, 2009)

The question is who does this really affect? The answer is the stupid IF and only IF they are very unlucky.

Looking at the luck aspect first. Facebook has millions of subscribers around the world. If they had any interest in using any of the materials on there for profit other than selling huge amounts of customer data to subscribers they would have to sort through literally billions of **** photos to find the handful of good ones. They would need to dedicate entire departments to this. And even then while their EULA is a nasty bit of lawyering work, it was written by lawyers and not by business men. What do you think would happen if they used my ugly face on an ad campaign? Their customers would be scared, and quite a few may even leave facebook. Not a good business decision for a social networking site.

More than likely they would use high quality images posted by photographers, not happy snaps taken of drunk tarts with camera phones. These people would be in the "stupid" category. Facebook is a social networking site not an image sharing site. And on top of that it's a very interoperable site. So if you want to post photos on facebook, just post them on flickr. My facebook is set up to auto import my flickr updates to display any changes to my flickr account in my news. On top of that the myflickr app imports flickr photos how you set it up so if people click "my flickr" on my page, they are greeted with my most recent photo (large), my 4 most recent photos (thumbnail) and then 5 random photos (thumbnail) and facebook has zero rights at all to the images since they are neither uploaded there nor hosted there.

So the end result is that this change in EULA is really really nasty from a user rights perspective, but I really doubt that it will even remotely affect any of the facebook users.



Overread said:


> I wonder - will you say the same when its your drunken face on the next national anti drugs campaign poster?



I probably still would but that's just me. Kind of like when KKR and RJR Nabisco were in a huge bidding war the CEO Ross Johnson ended up on TIME magazine cover with the title "Is this the face of corporate greed." When asked if he thought the cover was bad by the media he replied "Are you kidding? I got my face on the cover of TIME!" 

Bit of pride would say yeah that's me on that billboard.


----------



## hankejp (Feb 18, 2009)

I see that Facebook has just went back to their previous terms of use:

Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 18, 2009)

hankejp said:


> I see that Facebook has just went back to their previous terms of use:
> 
> Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.


 
Damn, you scooped me.  I came rushing back here to post that as soon as I saw it.

Power to the people!

Amazing when companies actually listen.  Now we just need to get Verizon, Apple, Sony and Adobe to open their ears.


----------



## sarallyn (Feb 18, 2009)

hankejp said:


> I see that Facebook has just went back to their previous terms of use:
> 
> Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.


 
here's a link;

Facebook backs down, reverses on user information policy - CNN.com


----------



## Neuner (Feb 18, 2009)

Man, do you guys like to squabble over petty details.

Reading more news about this, it was an effort by FB to cover their butts in the future.  They are concerned with information left behind on their system after someone deletes their account.  If someone left the site and later, because of the way FB operates, information or data about you saved to others accounts caused you harm or was used against you could sue FB for retaining that data since you opted to have your information deleted.

Now, this latest move has caused officials and the general public to raise eyebrows about how FB operates and stores data.  Instead of changing the Terms, they may now have the added expense of changing the way the FB system operates to cover themselves.


I thought it was interesting how some of you don't post your photos on FB because of someone possibly stealing it or having copyright over it?  I like the idea of watermarking which I've done.  I recently posted my photos and now through the networking of friends, word is spreading and I'm getting questions about my services.  One of my friends asked if I would sell a higher resolution of one of my photos. If you post and link to another site like Flickr, then when someone comments about how wonderful your photo is, no one else on FB is notified of it.


----------



## ANDS! (Feb 18, 2009)

Battou said:


> You are going to have to provide me indisputable proof that this one was infact written by an outside legle team. In Facebooks Official statement they say "We", Unless otherwise noted, all first-person pronouns ("we", "us") used in website Policy refer to applicable site staff members, and all second-person pronouns ("you") refer to the registered member of the applicable site and/or the unregistered visitor to the applicable site. They also go on to say "We're at an interesting point in the development of the open online world where these issues are being worked out. It's difficult terrain to navigate and we're going to make some missteps"  I think that only makes my case of poor choice of words on the part of facebooks administration staff more plauseable, I mean thay come right out and say We are not exactly sure how to go about this so we might screw up somewhere along the lines.
> 
> On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information | Facebook
> 
> ...



Good luck getting anyone to not succumb to their own hysteria and hype.  Its scary actually, how possessed of critical thinking skills we like to think of ourselves, yet how easy it is to fall victim to the old Tin-Can Telephone game: OMG!  Did you hear!  Pass it on!  

If only the truth was able to spread as quickly.


----------



## manaheim (Feb 18, 2009)

Neuner said:


> Man, do you guys like to squabble over petty details.


 
I don't consider petty details to be actually petty.

Particularly in the US, people are not aware enough about a variety of things including protection of ownership and privacy.

It's GOOD that people are watching this carefully.  I think that occasionally people either:

a> Don't realize that even the agreement they are "ok" with, is massively full of holes and subject to interpretation.
b> Over-react to some details that won't really affect them.
c> Don't realize that companies can change stuff mid-stream and frequently can declare "oh that agreement we had in the past is now null and void and this new one is retroactive to when you first signed on!" (If memory serves, Amazon did this very thing)

But even with that, at least they're trying to be alert to it, and that's a start.

I do think that sometimes companies (possible even most times) are really just trying to protect themselves, and the underlying spirit of the agreements they issue on these premises tend to be reasonable... the problem is that they necessarily must leave open some nasty gaping areas where, if they wanted to, they could basically opt to sieze all your rights later on if they decided they wanted to.  That's just not good.

By and large, if you want to protect your stuff, the best thing to do is to treat it as if it was a tangible valuable and assume posting it somewhere is essentially like putting it outside on your front doorstep.  If you wouldn't be comfortable doing that, then don't post it online.


----------



## Neuner (Feb 18, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I don't consider petty details to be actually petty.
> 
> Particularly in the US, people are not aware enough about a variety of things including protection of ownership and privacy.


 
Not what I was referring to.  Petty things are stupid debates over who wrote the damn Terms, lawyers or staff.  Who cares? It's not the issue at hand.

Now your statement about people in the US not being aware is very true, I mean look at who they stuck in the Oval Office...


----------



## Garbz (Feb 18, 2009)

Neuner said:


> Now your statement about people in the US not being aware is very true, I mean look at who they stuck in the Oval Office...



Current or past? That really needs to be specified starting this year


----------



## rubbertree (Feb 18, 2009)

The FB peeps said over and over again on the news yesterday that this revised wording was updated legal mumbo jumbo that most website hosts such as FB are now using and that they were not actually going to retain anyone's image ever.
Regardless, this am, because of the freak out, they agreed to go back to their old wording until they can get this sorted out. 
As if any of it matters anyway.


----------



## Neuner (Feb 18, 2009)

Garbz said:


> Current or past? That really needs to be specified starting this year



Obviously both.. :er:


----------



## Overread (Feb 18, 2009)

Neuner said:


> Obviously both.. :er:



*starts threadlock countdown*

lets see if we can keep on track and keep this thread open


----------



## abraxas (Feb 18, 2009)

Overread said:


> *starts threadlock countdown*
> 
> lets see if we can keep on track and keep this thread open



Summarizing;



> The sky is falling!!!!





> ****!!! What do we do???





> Run out into the street and scream!!!





> Okay!!! Why?





> Because we can!!!





> But isn't the sky falling?





> Read my lips.





> Which lip?





> Won't the sky hit us in the head if it is falling and I am out there?





> Unresolved,...





> What does this have to do with politics?





> The ****ing sky is falling.





> Here's a picture of my dog. C&C ?




...


----------



## Mike_E (Feb 18, 2009)

LOL, whatever.. they've moved them back to the originals.


----------



## JerryPH (Feb 18, 2009)

There must have been some heat felt there by upper management to go back to previous TOS... not that it was any better anyways... lol


----------



## AlexColeman (Feb 21, 2009)

It will be interesting to see what turn copyrights take in the next decade.


----------



## sarahashleyphotos (Feb 21, 2009)

If you only upload photos that are like 500px then they cant print them or make them any bigger so they just have a small version of your photo that is basically worthless. Never upload originals to a site like that.


----------



## Hobbes (Feb 21, 2009)

sarahashleyphotos said:


> If you only upload photos that are like 500px then they cant print them or make them any bigger so they just have a small version of your photo that is basically worthless. Never upload originals to a site like that.



Well the photos shown on facebook are a lot smaller than those I usually upload, around 800x600. So they actually save those larger version even though the site itself can only display smaller pictures? The Facebook policy doesn't concern me much since I never upload any personal pictures or anything but I kinda got a lil bit upset with a friend of a friend of mine when she posted  a picture taken by me in a public group page without asking. -.-


----------

