Don't upload your photos to Facebook

[fly my pretties]

Thank God they changed it, now they can't make millions of dollars from the badly compressed 600 pixel jpeg pictures of peoples family and pets.

[Derweissehai]

Well it seems we have made a small difference for now. But do keep in mind this did happen back in 99 when yahoo bought out geocities too. SO my photos are gone as well. But I don't plan on going to court or anything. They should how ever make it mandatory to ask the copyright holder if they can use they photo as long the the artist is compensated and given full photo credit.

We do enough promoting of FB for them when we post on there and other places.

[LowriderS10]

uhh....I just read the TOS and it looks to me that it's word for word what it was a few days ago...

[400dabuser]

Because if you do you are giving them the right to do anything they like with them. They can even make money from them and they don't have to pay you a penny.

http://www.xyhd.tv/2009/02/industry-news/all-your-facebook-photos-are-belong-to-us-new-facebook-tos/


I have only uploaded my mugshot on facebook, least to say, I doubt if they would use it for anything:lol:

[Perry Ge]

uhh....I just read the TOS and it looks to me that it's word for word what it was a few days ago...

Um..yeah...I just did exactly the same, what changes?

[thebishopp]

I already responded to that. If it makes you feel better to bash my earlier comment, knock yourself out.



I suppose you think adding lots of LOL's makes your post more endearing? I've simply maintained that when you read Facebook's TOS in light of its need to properly protect itself while doing what it does best (taking your content and allowing third parties - your friends, application vendors you might approve, etc. - to access, modify and share it), its demands are not necessarily as insidious as they sound on first reading.

Actually what you said was this:

"
Alright, fair call :smile:

Perhaps they need to dumb it down a bit, and/or add a "what this really means in practise" section."

and then this:

"I'm not sure it actually does mean that. Maybe I'm wrong, but commercial/advertising use doesn't actually mean they have the right to sell commercial use to others.

Dunno. I hope they clear it up quick smart.

EDIT: I'm obviously assuming "sublicense" means less than it might mean.

-----------------------

And that is ridiculous. How much more can they dumb it down? It is already in plain english. And what's this about it not meaning what it says? Assuming words mean less than what they "might" mean?

You already need an attorney to explain a simple and fairly straightforward TOS... perhaps you need an english professor to explain my response?

There was no bashing in my previous post. But if it makes you feel better to think of yourself as a victim then knock yourself out.

I in fact was "laughing out loud". As far as "lots" of "lol's". I used three. That is considered "several" as it is more than two but fewer than "many". If I had used two then it would of been considered a "couple".

Now "lots" would be a "considerable quantity" of which three could hardly be so.... then again though, perhaps you don't really mean what you say or mean less than what you might mean.

Maybe if you need to dumb it down a bit, and/or add a "what this really means in practise" section.

Now if i were trying to make my post "endearing" I would of used smiley faces :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

[thebishopp]

They made a mistake in their wording.

The blog entry on Monday clearly demonstrated their intent for the TOS change in wording, but they made that ambiguous and open to mis-interpretation.

I don't know pete. The fact is the "new" tos specifically mentioned commerical useage and not social networking usage. Other sites have not found the need to try and grab commercial usage rights for all time as well as the rights to give/sell your images to third parties as long as it somehow supports facebook. Also I am somewhat skeptical that Facebook with their team of lawyers made a wording mistake of that magnitude. It seemed a pretty simple, straightforward and well written paragraph which essentially gave facebook total control over anything you uploaded to them.

[thebishopp]

uhh....I just read the TOS and it looks to me that it's word for word what it was a few days ago...

The press release I read on msn did say that they would revert to the old TOS "temporarily" :-)

[TheHoff]

Sadly...I doubt that. There would be a big initial uproar (if you even found out and it wasn't used on a local dating site based in Ukraine), Fox would follow it for 2 days, 400,000 Facebook users would join a Facebook group opposing it and everyone would forget about it in a week...

Just FYI, this TOS story has been covered on 'The View' for the past two days (blame my wife). It is a lot more than some news side story as so many millions of people are joining Facebook each month. When you have the hens on The View cackling about your website screw-up on Hot Topics, and following it to see if it is resolved to their layman's satisfaction, it is a big deal.

[Derweissehai]

Hoff: we won't hold it against you for watching the view ( the wife made you do it). how ironic is it that this made it to the View.

[HSK]

Its been featuring in alot of TV news reports today, so they will really need to clarify or justify their actions, with even more (regular) people hearing about it.

[XterraJohn]

Just out of curiosity, how many people here actually read through the TOS when they initially signed up with this company?

[LowriderS10]

thebishopp: I think "temporary" was about 1.3 seconds

TheHoff: Yes...and that's EXACTLY what I was talking about. That there would be a huge uproar about it and nobody will do anything. How many people on your friends list have closed their account in reaction to this? That's the TRUE test of anything significant happening. Everyone will yap, very few of us (more on here, but fewer in the greater FB world) will pull our pictures, and almost nobody will actually close their account.

[TheHoff]

thebishopp: I think "temporary" was about 1.3 seconds

TheHoff: Yes...and that's EXACTLY what I was talking about. That there would be a huge uproar about it and nobody will do anything. How many people on your friends list have closed their account in reaction to this? That's the TRUE test of anything significant happening. Everyone will yap, very few of us (more on here, but fewer in the greater FB world) will pull our pictures, and almost nobody will actually close their account.

It has not become an account closing offense... yet.

And I'm surprised we're watching the same news stories. The View doesn't often cover the legalese of website policies, do they? That makes this a big deal, to me. They covered it again today with the blonde being contacted by Facebook's CEO after the last show.

People aren't deleting out because they're waiting to see how it resolves. This isn't the "end of Facebook" but when very mainstream news is covering legalese, it matters. And more than a few of my friends on FB, non-photographers mind you, have posted links to the news stories on their FB page.

[Karl Johnston]

Thank God they changed it, now they can't make millions of dollars from the badly compressed 600 pixel jpeg pictures of peoples family and pets.
LOL

[LowriderS10]

It has not become an account closing offense... yet.

And I'm surprised we're watching the same news stories. The View doesn't often cover the legalese of website policies, do they? That makes this a big deal, to me. They covered it again today with the blonde being contacted by Facebook's CEO after the last show.

People aren't deleting out because they're waiting to see how it resolves. This isn't the "end of Facebook" but when very mainstream news is covering legalese, it matters. And more than a few of my friends on FB, non-photographers mind you, have posted links to the news stories on their FB page.

we're talking about the same thing :) I agree with you that it's a big story and all. all I'm saying is I don't see facebook being dead in a month, as you said in a previous post, if they started selling people's junk. I'm saying that people are all talk. Sure they post links and sure the hens on the View are clucking away at it, but, really, where is the mass hordes of people removing content or shutting down their accounts in protest? Nowhere.

[TheHoff]

we're talking about the same thing :) I agree with you that it's a big story and all. all I'm saying is I don't see facebook being dead in a month, as you said in a previous post, if they started selling people's junk. I'm saying that people are all talk. Sure they post links and sure the hens on the View are clucking away at it, but, really, where is the mass hordes of people removing content or shutting down their accounts in protest? Nowhere.

Because they didn't do anything with the content!

My comment about Facebook being "dead in a month" was on the condition if they actually started using uploaded images for a commercial purpose against user's privacy wishes. That would certainly kill them. That would be 10 times bigger than this story already is. People are not all talk if their images were being used in untowards ways -- there are a dozen other social networking startups that would benefit and one would become the new de facto.

Heck 18 months ago most people had never heard of Facebook. It could easily fall. Remember Alta Vista? They dominated... once.

And it is again the most emailed story today on CNN.com.

[LowriderS10]

Oh yeah, I know what you mean, dude...I'm just saying that 10x the action of what's going on right now (all talk, no action) will still result in zero action. Sure it's the most emailed story on CNN...but where is the statistic that users have collectively removed 6 million images? Or that 300,000 members left in protest?

I'm not saying Facebook is invincible...but I think its chances of falling to the next fad or flavour of the week are much greater than it falling to a rash of people leaving because they're unhappy with the service. I may be wrong, but I just see a lot of talking and no walking and don't expect that to change.

Alta Vista didn't fall because they screwed up, they fell because bigger and better things came along.

[deserttarheel]

Article in NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/technology/internet/17facebook.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=facebook&st=cse.
(If link doesn't work, you can search for 'facebook' on the NY Times site.)

[alduin]

Sure it's the most emailed story on CNN...but where is the statistic that users have collectively removed 6 million images? Or that 300,000 members left in protest?

In Facebook's database, and they sure aren't going to volunteer that information anytime soon.

I know of at least two people who deleted their accounts, but that brings up another question. Does someone deleting their account show up in your news feed?

[TheHoff]

I'm not saying Facebook is invincible...but I think its chances of falling to the next fad or flavour of the week are much greater than it falling to a rash of people leaving because they're unhappy with the service. I may be wrong, but I just see a lot of talking and no walking and don't expect that to change.

Alta Vista didn't fall because they screwed up, they fell because bigger and better things came along.

The story just broke to the mainstream yesterday. I wouldn't expect so much action so quickly. They haven't actually done anything inappropriate besides changing some legalese to be more grabby.

Large websites fall for a number of reasons -- competitors, people unhappy with the service, bills they can't pay with no valid business model, too popular to maintain their growth, etc. and often a combination of those. Venture capitalists are always looking for the next big thing and given the short lifespan Facebook has had so far, they are not even close to invincible. MySpace was the 'flavour of the week' just two years back.

Anyway, we can argue till we're out of breath about what people 'might' do but right now this is a far bigger story than any other Terms of Service I've ever heard of.

[TheHoff]

Does someone deleting their account show up in your news feed?

Since de-friending never shows up in any feed I doubt that account removal does.

[LowriderS10]

The story just broke to the mainstream yesterday. I wouldn't expect so much action so quickly.

Anyway, we can argue till we're out of breath about what people 'might' do but right now this is a far bigger story than any other Terms of Service I've ever heard of.

Hmm...you're right...on the other hand, I was expecting a lot of knee-jerk reactions from people...I think this one will fizzle out, especially after Zuckerman's lame-ass PR backtracking ;)

Well now, I won't argue with you on the last point ;) It is pretty interesting when a TOS on something like FB makes international headlines...

[breal101]

Here's an ireport on CNN, it should have been titled: Duuuhhhh!

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-216201

[Perry Ge]

Here's an ireport on CNN, it should have been titled: Duuuhhhh!

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-216201

Oh what an epic failure in understanding what the problem is, and the comments are HARSH :lol:.

[TheHoff]

Update:

Today we announced new opportunities for users to play a meaningful role in determining the policies governing our site. We released the first proposals subject to these procedures – The Facebook Principles, a set of values that will guide the development of the service, and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that governs Facebook’s operations. Users will have the opportunity to review, comment and vote on these documents over the coming weeks and, if they are approved, other future policy changes. We’ve posted the documents in separate groups and invite you to offer comments and suggestions. For more information and links to the two groups, check out the Facebook Blog.

http://blog.facebook.com/

[TheHoff]

After reading through it...

In drafting the proposed Statement, we sought to address user comments made in the “Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities” group. The administrators, Julius and Anne Kathrine, kindly summarized the following three major issues raised in that group.

1. “Forever won't work: Facebook's use of our content has to have clear limits.”

We sought to address this comment in a number of ways. First, we make it clear that users own all of their content. Second, we removed the terms “perpetual” and “irrevocable” from the license grant we receive from our users. Third, we make it clear that this license ends when you delete your content or your account. And finally, we make it clear that we can only use your content in a manner consistent with your privacy and application settings.

That satisfies my complaints.

[LowriderS10]

that's a step in the right direction...I'm STILL somewhat leery about the whole giving over rights to edit and/or sell my pictures...

[Nevilleblack]

Will they use my pics? maybe not...I dont think that my pictures would ever be used when I upload them at 200px and med quality. But lets face it, when it comes to fighting anything in court its all about what you agreed to and what is written down. If they say they own anything uploaded as a TOS then I doubt you could fight that knowing full well when you uploaded your info or pics that they would have the rights to it. It was always like that, before this big media coverage. Its just now they changed it a bit and called rights to it all even when the account or pictures etc have been deleted. No matter how much sugar coating is applied by them, facebook in my opinion is a sneaky data miner. People need to be aware of what they post and when and where. I took all my detailed info and pro pics down a long time ago thankfully.
Regardless, dont ever post good quality pictures if you do choose to post.