Print 46 comment(s) - last by Regs.. on Feb 18 at 1:07 PM

  (Source: TalkingHeadTV)
A recent change in Facebook's TOS has left some Facebook users rather disgruntled

The previous Facebook terms of service (TOS) stated that if a user closed his or her Facebook account, rights to original content posted on the profile would eventually expire.  The recent TOS changes, however, give Facebook the ability to use uploaded content any way they see fit through an unending and irrevocable license.

Bloggers and Twitter users discovered the new TOS earlier this morning and a mini-uproar has taken place by a number of Facebook users.

According to The Consumerist:

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.

The previous TOS had legal wording that essentially said content would expire at some point after user content is removed from Facebook.

"You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content."

Facebook has more than 175 million active users, gaining around 25 million in about one month.  The world's most popular social networking web site may have to answer angry complaints once a larger number of Facebook users become aware of the TOS changes the Palo Alto-based company recently made.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

And Corporations get a bad image...
By BadAcid on 2/16/2009 5:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
If I deactivated my account last week, does that mean my content license yatta yatta expires, since I never activated under these new terms?

By g3pro on 2/16/2009 6:13:27 PM , Rating: 4
You should log back in to check if that's the case.


RE: And Corporations get a bad image...
By walk2k on 2/16/09, Rating: -1
RE: And Corporations get a bad image...
By chmilz on 2/16/2009 9:45:22 PM , Rating: 5
Are you mental? According to the TOS, now my picture could be sold and/or used in a future ad or announcement. What if they sell my picture to be the face of the latest report-a-pedophile campaign or something? This is ludicrous.

RE: And Corporations get a bad image...
By acase on 2/17/2009 7:46:44 AM , Rating: 2
Geez take a deep breath. They only updated the TOS because when you close your account the previous comments you might have posted on a friend's wall etc. don't go away. They just needed to clarify that in the TOS, nothing really changed.

RE: And Corporations get a bad image...
By bighairycamel on 2/17/2009 9:49:40 AM , Rating: 4
(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.

Doesn't sound to me like they only want to display your user comments.

By Sungpooz on 2/17/2009 8:15:17 PM , Rating: 3
Don't worry I'm not pretty enough to be the face of the "Sexy single guys in (insert IP-relevant location here) looking to chat! Call me!" ad.

I'm prettyyyy sure most of us here aren't.

Maybe "Need tech services? Click here!". If I'm lucky.

RE: And Corporations get a bad image...
By tastyratz on 2/17/2009 8:58:54 AM , Rating: 2
Boy I was thinking profile of the week or site promotional content - you went straight for the gold with pedophile... should Chris Hanson have you on speed dial?

It really is scary what companies think they can get away with these days. That is serious business and quite bold I must say.

RE: And Corporations get a bad image...
By dever on 2/17/2009 2:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
Now, if we were only so concerned about what the government is doing to our "terms of service" agreements. At least Facebook membership is voluntary and free.

By clovell on 2/18/2009 12:22:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, well, it's oftentimes a bit hard to get the full scoop on a 1000+ bill (which effectively subsidizes the electorate) in just a couple days before the Senate is forced to vote on it by the guy who campaigned on transparency.

By xphile on 2/17/2009 5:54:37 PM , Rating: 2
Even worse, since Ive been using your face on my Support-a-Pedophile Facebook page, they can now use all the juicy stuff on there and make the movie and book and I wont even get a cent... course neither will you...

By Regs on 2/18/2009 1:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I can see this TOS being tossed out easily in a court of law. Users log-in in the reasonable assumption that their material will be kept private, which most of them are, and then to have your pictures sprayed all over advertisements for Viagra.

What scares me most is that all of a sudden they wanted to change the TOS like it's an impending likelihood that they are going to evade.

RE: And Corporations get a bad image...
By Bateluer on 2/17/2009 8:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
I don't particularly like the new TOS. If I snap a picture of myself with friends at a club or restaurant, then that picture could be sold by Facebook for advertising or dangers of alcohol, or whatever they wish.

I'll just keep my pictures on my web server and share the links with friends only through email or other IM services. I'll use Facebook as my 'blog'.

RE: And Corporations get a bad image...
By Indianapolis on 2/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: And Corporations get a bad image...
By Bateluer on 2/17/2009 8:38:55 AM , Rating: 4
Its the principle of the thing. That they could use your photos for anything they pleased, without your permission. I merely brought up a more positive possibility than another commenter who suggested they could use his picture on a 'catch a pedophile' show.

By twhittet on 2/17/2009 6:34:32 PM , Rating: 2
There are plenty of people who could think of something. Thirty years from now they could dig up the teenage version of a presidential candidates facebook page. They could eventually dig up years of semi-personal data on anyone they wanted, whenever they wanted. They would own the rights - forever. That means 10 years from now when no one uses facebook, and Facebook sells the rest of their stock to the highest bidder, then that person then has the right to do whatever they want with anything you've ever had related to your profile.

People may think they're safe because facebook wouldn't want to ruin their reputation, but "forever" is a long time.

By omnicronx on 2/17/2009 10:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
Then why do it at all if they do not intend on using it? What possible purpose could this amendment serve? I personally can't think of any, other than to create another revenue source from either using the data for marketing purposes, or to have exclusive rights to any user posted content should there be any value to it.

So in conclusion
By InternetGeek on 2/16/2009 5:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
Dont use facebook if you want to monetize your ability to find good content on the internet...

RE: So in conclusion
By Googer on 2/17/2009 1:31:33 AM , Rating: 2
Lets also take note that the CIA is also a funding investor of Facebook.

Multiple links of the same video in case one is claimed as copyright.


RE: So in conclusion
By FaceMaster on 2/17/2009 5:13:53 AM , Rating: 4
I bet they're also part of the Illuminati. And masons. Don't forget Obama, he's obviously part of the Skull and Crossbones group. Plus the water we drink is polluted with fluoride to make us docile so we don't rebel. The moon landings were fake, Abraham and Kennedy weren't really assassinated and anybody who doesn't believe in all of these conspiracies is obviously brainwashed beyond all help.

RE: So in conclusion
By diego10arg on 2/17/2009 9:05:26 AM , Rating: 2
You also forgot to mention that Walt Disney is frozen.


RE: So in conclusion
By FaceMaster on 2/17/2009 4:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
You also forgot to mention that Walt Disney is frozen. LOL

I'll just blame that on global warming.

If you need to be on Facebook, you need help
By Beenthere on 2/16/2009 9:50:15 PM , Rating: 4
Anyone who feels they need to be on Facebook would be wise to get a life instead.

RE: If you need to be on Facebook, you need help
By Rob94hawk on 2/16/2009 10:53:30 PM , Rating: 2
If you had any idea of how many hot nurses I work with you would be wondering who really needs to get a life.

They are the only reason why I got on facebook to begin with. The best is when they all go out and drink and then send me the pics. You learn a lot about your co workers through facebook when you mix it with alchohol...:D

By angryandroid on 2/17/2009 3:31:01 AM , Rating: 2
I just started using facebook a few days ago for very similar reasons.

Mind you, I can imagine why some people would be very concerned about this development.

has happened before
By vapore0n on 2/17/2009 8:23:46 AM , Rating: 2
And after all the kicking and screaming, people will live with it.

People need to learn that anything posted in the internets is public domain.

RE: has happened before
By omnicronx on 2/17/2009 10:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
People need to learn that anything posted in the internets is public domain.
I forgot the internet was free and clear of copyright rules. </sarcasm> The internet is not public domain, pretty much anything written down is subject to copyright. Licensing rights are not dependent on the form of distribution, nor is the means in which they are acquired. This is the part where most people get confused, as yes the Internet is not controlled, licensed or governed by any individual, but licensing rights still do apply.

People also think that something has to go through an official process to become copyright. In most nations, an authors work is covered by copyright the second it is put into fixed form, without the need to be registered.

The only way this can be circumvented is adding it into the Terms of Service. Myspace music has been doing this for a long time with anything that is uploaded. They state that essentially anything you upload belongs to them as per the license agreement you would have signed.

RE: has happened before
By PrinceGaz on 2/17/2009 10:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
Once you upload something to the interwebs, you abandon control of it, unless you can afford to pay a team of lawyers. Pictures are used willy-nilly by other sites, and linked to on forums and blogs, then re-posted etc, such that you should assume that the moment you put a picture on the web, it is out of your control.

By committing a picture to the web, it should be considered an irrevocable transaction where you abandon all copyright to it. Even large corporations which enforce copyright vigorously can easily fall foul as modified pictures would be difficult to prove were sourced from a particular original.

It is quite usual for third-party sites to claim ownership of material uploaded to them, presumably in case there is something of value. It isn't a problem, so long as you are aware that they are doing this (it will be in the T&Cs you agree to when signing up).

RE: has happened before
By Chris Simmo on 2/18/2009 12:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
True, or there wouldn't be a case against the pirate bay.

By TSS on 2/16/2009 5:53:14 PM , Rating: 4
All your face are belong to us?

RE: hmmm
By Etsp on 2/16/09, Rating: 0
RE: hmmm
By NainoKami on 2/17/2009 6:11:55 AM , Rating: 3

lol @ pic
By oTAL on 2/17/2009 1:24:33 AM , Rating: 2
Annoying pic...
Someone should hit Zuckerberg in the Face with a Book...
(meh... nevermind... I got nothing against the guy)

RE: lol @ pic
By vapore0n on 2/17/2009 8:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
and to think that kid is a billionaire...

Oh noes
By SavagePotato on 2/17/2009 12:08:05 AM , Rating: 1
Oh noes Facebook could profit from Billy Joe Bucks pictures of himself crushing beer cans on his head, or the pics of his girlfriend holding her camera over her head in the shower taking one of those f-ing retarded angle shots.

Facebook is just electronic masturbation anyway. Perhaps people should not put content they do not want in another persons hands on the internet in the first place.

RE: Oh noes
By aapocketz on 2/18/2009 10:56:53 AM , Rating: 2
I kinda wonder how whenever a news site gets a story they dig up all their facebook and myspace images and postings. Like remember Elliott Spitzer scandal when that girl's recordings and party photos were all over cable news? I wondered before how news stations got this material since they cant see someones profile unless they are friends with them right? Previously I assumed one of their friends sold them out, or they had a public profile or something. Now Facebook can just sell CNN your profile data. is that true? Could anyone purchase your information?

There are other issues
By MrTeal on 2/17/2009 11:21:18 PM , Rating: 3
I don't think the real issue here is that Facebook will use pictures of drunk fratboys.

My concern is that this could be interpreted as giving Facebook the right to any creative works that are posted on their website. What if you post a short story on your page, but later pull it off and develop it into a book? The same would go for anyone who posts creative works. Facebook now has the right to use what you posted in perpetuity.

lol yea...
By bigpimpatl on 2/16/2009 9:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
who couldn't see this coming from a mile away...They gotta generate revenue somehow. Time to be extra careful what I post from now on.

The Internet is like a swimming pool
By Darkk on 2/16/2009 11:40:02 PM , Rating: 2
Haven't you learned anything about the Internet?

It's like taking a piss in the swimming pool and you'd be damned if you want to get it out.

Case in point - don't ever post or say anything on the net if you don't want people to know about it because once it's out there they own it.

By jay401 on 2/17/2009 1:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
And some people still don't understand why you shouldn't use your real name on social networking sites or share all your vital information in public.

By Dreifort on 2/17/2009 10:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
Here's something for Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits. Something that could make lawyers' heads explode.

What happens with the copyright ownership if Apple posts a photo on Facebook of someone touching their iPhone?

On the other hand...
By waffle911 on 2/17/2009 11:39:50 PM , Rating: 2
This would give Facebook legal precedent to archive and hand over to the authorities any content that someone might post incriminating either themselves or someone else for any reason; then the person in question cannot legally claim that Facebook did not have legal rights to submit such content as evidence. While that would never hold up in a court of law, it gets a lot of red tape out of the way from the get-go.

power to the people
By warpigseh on 2/18/2009 2:11:02 AM , Rating: 2
the people have spoken.

facebook as returned to its original terms of agreement.

By araknie on 2/18/2009 3:38:50 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if it means they only can use those low res images they make of your uploaded pics or whether they've saved the originals and can use them

By Anonymous Freak on 2/16/2009 8:16:38 PM , Rating: 1
Translation: Make sure everything you do is "friends only". A *WORST*, they could keep showing your stuff to your friends.

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki