Don't upload your photos to Facebook

[JoYork]

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/

[jgoodstein]

Ouch, when did they change it?

[JoYork]

In the last few days, I think. Their TOS were pretty bad before but these seem to be way OTT.

They could write anything there and people would still sign up.

[HQP]

This wouldn't include the pics from my own website that have I have a link to on Facebook would it?

[sapearl]

I certainly hope not - it shouldn't, but then that's just my opinion an I can easily imagine them putting the grab on as much as they can. Thanks for sharing the article Jo. They could use some proof readers also, especially in the title.:rolleyes:

This wouldn't include the pics from my own website that have I have a link to on Facebook would it?

[narlus]

This wouldn't include the pics from my own website that have I have a link to on Facebook would it?

i am thinking it shouldn't...if one was to link to a story on say Rolling Stone and it included a thumbnail of some shot, i cannot see how this rights grab could possibly apply to that.

[narlus]

They could use some proof reeders also, especially in the title.:rolleyes:


:lol:

sorry, couldn't resist.

btw, it's a take-off on this internet meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us)

[sapearl]

Here is the text of Facebook boilerplate. What I find confusing/vague/disturbing is the portion I have highlight:

"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."

As HQP pointed out, many of us can have "shared links" to our websites, galleries, blogs.... so by "connection" does it extend in that direction also?

I am guessing technically NO, but what if Facebook decides to employ somebody to "mine" websites full time for images and then sell them as microstock?

[sapearl]

Ah narlus, you nailed me fair and square....:o. These 57 year old eyes aren't what they used to be.

:lol:

sorry, couldn't resist.

btw, it's a take-off on this internet meme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_your_base_are_belong_to_us)

[ofdphoto]

This sounds like exactly what Facebook needs to be able to function, i.e. to be allowed to show your photos to your friends and to allow them to interact with them.

If they're silly enough to want to use a heavily-compressed watermarked JPEG of mine for their purposes, more power to them. But I'm sure these terms have nothing to do with that.

[sapearl]

Very likely the case - I'm probably just being overly paranoid in view of the current business climate.:rolleyes:

.......If they're silly enough to want to use a heavily-compressed watermarked JPEG of mine for their purposes, more power to them. But I'm sure these terms have nothing to do with that.

[Bobster]

This sounds like exactly what Facebook needs to be able to function, i.e. to be allowed to show your photos to your friends and to allow them to interact with them.

If they're silly enough to want to use a heavily-compressed watermarked JPEG of mine for their purposes, more power to them. But I'm sure these terms have nothing to do with that.
my thoughts luke

[primoz]

As HQP pointed out, many of us can have "shared links" to our websites, galleries, blogs.... so by "connection" does it extend in that direction also?
I guess not. If yes, then I just put link to Getty, and they will automatically own Getty :mrgreen: But then again, I wouldn't be 100% sure about this.:confused:

[primoz]

This sounds like exactly what Facebook needs to be able to function, i.e. to be allowed to show your photos to your friends and to allow them to interact with them.
I don't agree. If this would be the case, then there's no need to include into TOS all the writing about reproduction, scanning, copying, editing, selling etc.. None of this is necessary to just show photos. Sure some things are, but none of mentioned are.

[HSK]

This is true - why would they mention all that?

Very naughty.

[mbellot]

i am thinking it shouldn't...if one was to link to a story on say Rolling Stone and it included a thumbnail of some shot, i cannot see how this rights grab could possibly apply to that.

Lets hope not, since I know there are a couple people linking MY photos (on SmugMug) from their FB accounts (Google Analytics can be very useful).

If FB think they can pull a rights grab they've got another thing coming, especially since there is no way to track back the FB users posting the links. GA just gives me ./profile links with no specific user info and I have yet to figure out how to find them any other way.

EDIT: It does make me glad I popped for a Pro account and watermark all my images.

[musicmaster]

They aren't going to do anything with it. Its simply not big enough.

The longest side is 604px. When you upload photos to facebook, it automatically resizes them to that before uploading. Hell, otherwise I would have uploaded about 50MB of photos in about 15 seconds. Not going to happen on residential DSL

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-ak-snc1/v2101/238/37/1148820226/n1148820226_30715884_8278.jpg

[HSK]

^ hmm it might actually store the original sized file you upload before it applies it's crappy compression and size restrictions for the profile pics.

It doesn't resize before hand, it receives the entirety of the image (within its file size limit)

Same way you upload any format video and it converts it to a flash video.

The fact is you've still uploaded that original file. unless you firstly upload a small file. then, meh.

[musicmaster]

^ hmm it might actually store the original sized file you upload before it applies it's crappy compression and size restrictions for the profile pics.

It doesn't resize before hand, it receives the entirety of the image (within its file size limit)

Same way you upload any format video and it converts it to a flash video.

The fact is you've still uploaded that original file. unless you firstly upload a small file. then, meh.

Check the upload times though. Uploading huge amount of photos takes seconds. My upload rate at home is capped at about 50KB/s, yet about 50MB of photos somehow got uploaded in less than half a minute.

[HSK]

hmm really? I never noticed :$ I always thought they take the original file then down convert it.

[nphsbuckeye]

I'd be moderately impressed if they could take off the watermark on my images, and then want to take an already low quality copy before they compress them.

[TheHoff]

Check the upload times though. Uploading huge amount of photos takes seconds. My upload rate at home is capped at about 50KB/s, yet about 50MB of photos somehow got uploaded in less than half a minute.

Your understanding of how the uploading process works is flawed. Facebook must take whatever you upload and save it, at least temporarily, before they resize it. That resizing does not happen on your end before you send it.

As an application developer, I've written these upload routines, and I certainly do save the original file somewhere on the server even if we're going to use a smaller more compressed version. The reason for this is that in the future if you want to move to a larger image display size, you'll have the originals that you can go back and run an automatic resize on to the new format.

[musicmaster]

Your understanding of how the uploading process works is flawed. Facebook must take whatever you upload and save it, at least temporarily, before they resize it. That resizing does not happen on your end before you send it.

As an application developer, I've written these upload routines, and I certainly do save the original file somewhere on the server even if we're going to use a smaller more compressed version. The reason for this is that in the future if you want to move to a larger image display size, you'll have the originals that you can go back and run an automatic resize on to the new format.


It's not how facebook does it.

They use a java applet which does the resizing on the local machine for them before the upload to the server.

When you upload something to them, you see "Processing" for about 15 seconds, then "uploading" for another 15 seconds. Thats for about 25 photos too.


During that processing stage, the pictures must be resized. As I said before my upload is caped at 500kb/s (about 50KB/s) and 25 photos is about 50MB. in 30 seconds, the most it could have uploaded is 1.5-2MB. A far cry from 50MB

[ssracer]

Very interesting. FB does some serious compression on photos when you puload them. I have had a few that look great until I have uploaded them. A few times there has been a serious increase in the amount of noise in the pictures.

I have an app on my FB page that links to my Flickr account. I guess I will just upload my pics only to that from now on and tell my friends to look there for anything new I post.

[TheHoff]

It's not how facebook does it.

They use a java applet which does the resizing on the local machine for them before the upload to the server.

When you upload something to them, you see "Processing" for about 15 seconds, then "uploading" for another 15 seconds. Thats for about 25 photos too.


During that processing stage, the pictures must be resized. As I said before my upload is caped at 500kb/s (about 50KB/s) and 25 photos is about 50MB. in 30 seconds, the most it could have uploaded is 1.5-2MB. A far cry from 50MB

I never use their crap java applet as it hangs around too long and doesn't close out properly half the time; I use the Lightroom plugin. So yea you certainly may be right on that account that the java applet resizes before transmitting.

[plucks]

Thanks for the heads up! I was thinking about making a FB page for my restaurant and posting up our food photos.

[HSK]

Facebook also give you the choice of not using the java applet - theres a direct upload. Well, i've had to use it as the applet hasn't also been compatible for me.

[Bosscat]

Why would you upload an image of up to 5MB to there anyways? Due to being on dial-up, I have never loaded and image with more then 150K of data, and saw when somebody got smart and decided to print a few of my images as 4x6's, and wondered why they didn't look like what I normally have for sale.

[HSK]

^ well some people might not be so tech savy - they might just download pics of a cam and be ready to upload without converting or downsizing. I often get sent snaps from people which are massive, take up many emails etc, when they could of been downsized and zipped - people are often too lazy or just don't know.

[nphsbuckeye]

Why would you upload an image of up to 5MB to there anyways? Due to being on dial-up, I have never loaded and image with more then 150K of data, and saw when somebody got smart and decided to print a few of my images as 4x6's, and wondered why they didn't look like what I normally have for sale.
Have ever looked at the pictures on facebook? I doubt more than 15% of the people that have pictures up even know what megapixels are.

[narlus]

i plan on buying the 50mp hassy and uploading full-res shots of my ass.

[nphsbuckeye]

i plan on buying the 50mp hassy and uploading full-res shots of my ass.
bw!

[Bosscat]

Have ever looked at the pictures on facebook? I doubt more than 15% of the people that have pictures up even know what megapixels are.

Yes I have looked and yes they do know that if a camera has more, it must be better....LOL

I'd guess there is a small percentage of great shots on facebook, but most are utter rubbish and of really no use to anyone outside of those connected to said rubbish shots.

[nphsbuckeye]

As a professor of mine once said, they look like they all came from the same kegger.

[spkerer]

They aren't going to do anything with it. Its simply not big enough.

The longest side is 604px.

Zenfolio just recently added facilities to enable users to sell digital assets - like PDA wallpapers, etcl. I think 604px on the long side would probably cover many PDA and cellphone wallpaper backgrounds. Does it seem like a stretch to imagine Facebook providing a link along with an image that would allow you to download that image for your PDA/cellphone for some cost?

Beyond those uses, I don't see much use for 604px long side.

[Perry Ge]

Subscribed because uploading pics to facebook is lame enough - when did they change their TOS? Wouldn't users have to agree to changes first?

[TheHoff]

Subscribed because uploading pics to facebook is lame enough - when did they change their TOS? Wouldn't users have to agree to changes first?

Lame enough? C'mon, it is a great way to share pics with tech-ignorant family members. You're right though, I never agreed to a TOS change.

[nphsbuckeye]

Subscribed because uploading pics to facebook is lame enough - when did they change their TOS? Wouldn't users have to agree to changes first?
No worse a route than flickr.

[Perry Ge]

Lame enough? C'mon, it is a great way to share pics with tech-ignorant family members. You're right though, I never agreed to a TOS change.

Yeah you're right, I wasn't clear - I was referring more to how facebook's uploads butcher IQ and colours :lol:. But if the TOS changed without approval from the users, I'll be pissed, even if they had a clause that said 'terms and conditions subject to change without notice".

[pmk]

i plan on buying the 50mp hassy and uploading full-res shots of my ass.

That's funny! However the TOS are, once again, gonna kick you in the a$$. They own you, dude!

Prohibited Conduct

--do anything that could disable, overburden or impair the proper working of the Facebook Service;

--User Content that is threatening, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or that depicts nudity, pornography


pmk

[nphsbuckeye]

Prohibited Conduct

--do anything that could disable, overburden or impair the proper working of the Facebook Service
So, watermarks?

[MJPhotos24]

I got on facebook to keep in touch with people and noticed a lot of players I know had images that they took from sites that paid me for the usage, so the images these guys are taking off another site and uploading to facebook are now property of facebook? Yea, right let's see that one go over in court. All the images I've shot that are on there have a nice obtrusive watermark, but still may make them even more obtrusive or just ditch some entirely off there. I know one MLB photog who had images on there but took them all off because of the old TOS, these new ones are pathetic.

[alduin]

Much as I like a good conspiracy theory (and I most certainly yanked every last photo of mine off of my facebook account when I read about this), it seems like this may have just been a case of lawyer/technology incompatibility.

An article on consumerist.com (http://consumerist.com/5154745/facebook-clarifies-terms-of-service-we-do-not-own-your-stuff-forever) indicates that what the new TOS says wasn't what they meant, and it looks like they're also preparing an official statement on the matter.

[ssracer]

Great...and I just deleted all non snapshot pics that I had on there...lol

[PhotosGuy]

And there's this:
Flickr - Ownership of images (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=353178)

[MJPhotos24]

Facebook made a statement saying they do NOT own rights...

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content

[sapearl]

Well, at least they issued a statement pretty quickly to clear things up.

Facebook made a statement saying they do NOT own rights...

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content

[primoz]

They can make any statement they want, but as long as they keep their TOS written as they have it at the moment, this statements won't change anything. It's just to make them look better in public, but in reality, TOS is still same as it was before this statement.
I agree there's need for some of those things, to avoid possible problems if they want to host your images there. But there's absolutely no need for 90% of stuff in TOS with which they grab your work.

[LowriderS10]

that statement is nothing but a good spin by their PR people...it doesn't address the real issues.

I've removed all but one of my pictures. There's something sick about FB being able to use not only the pictures I take (even if it's only 600 by 600 pixels, they can still use it for a huge variety of things), but also pictures OF me...screw that noise. I've also removed all my personal info, including birthdate, relationship status, etc

[M_ark]

Here is the text of Facebook boilerplate. What I find confusing/vague/disturbing is the portion I have highlight:

or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b)

As HQP pointed out, many of us can have "shared links" to our websites, galleries, blogs.... so by "connection" does it extend in that direction also?

I am guessing technically NO, but what if Facebook decides to employ somebody to "mine" websites full time for images and then sell them as microstock?

I think that one is a reference to the 'share links' that FB provide for users to send/email links of their uploaded photos to other non facebook users and external page image linking.

in short, the use of hotlinked images stored on facebook's servers appearing on other websites is what i think the reference is about.

[ofdphoto]

Yay for over-reacting.

[hollis_f]

that statement is nothing but a good spin by their PR people...it doesn't address the real issues.
Of course it does.

To be able to run the service that they do they need to be allowed to make copies of your images and to manipulate them. And these TOS specifically say that they are allowed to do so - " in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof." So they're not allowed to take all your photos and sell them.

Any site that hosts content like this is going to require similar permissions from their users.

[JoYork]

It's about time they did away with legalese and wrote everything down in plain English.

[mbellot]

It's about time they did away with legalese and wrote everything down in plain English.

But then what would you do with all the out of work lawyers, we don't have enough landfill space to deal with them here in the states...

:p

[alduin]

But then what would you do with all the out of work lawyers, we don't have enough landfill space to deal with them here in the states...

:p

Perfect excuse to start a backyard compost pile! ;)

[mbellot]

Of course it does.

To be able to run the service that they do they need to be allowed to make copies of your images and to manipulate them. And these TOS specifically say that they are allowed to do so - " in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof." So they're not allowed to take all your photos and sell them.

Any site that hosts content like this is going to require similar permissions from their users.

They might not sell your photos (thats still unclear), but it sure looks like they intend to use them commercially without any compensation for the usage.

[JoYork]

I've always thought that 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name...

[fly my pretties]

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/

This is such crap.

So if I upload a picture owned by someone else, they can use it and profit from it?

In the real world, this couldn't possibly work, because they can never verify the owner just based on the fact that it was uploaded.

[Derweissehai]

Here is the text of Facebook boilerplate. What I find confusing/vague/disturbing is the portion I have highlight:

"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."

As HQP pointed out, many of us can have "shared links" to our websites, galleries, blogs.... so by "connection" does it extend in that direction also?

I am guessing technically NO, but what if Facebook decides to employ somebody to "mine" websites full time for images and then sell them as microstock?
Thanks for he post. Might have to remove my photos now....

[TheHoff]

The part about them owning any content that you LINK to on another site is pure bunk. The other stuff is concerning and if it isn't resolved in the next few days, I will be removing my photos as well.

[hollis_f]

I am guessing technically NO, but what if Facebook decides to employ somebody to "mine" websites full time for images and then sell them as microstock?Er, because that would be illegal and against their TOS? They can use your content to run and promote Facebook. Selling your images as microstock is neither.

I can't understand why people get so paranoid about these things. If they didn't have such a clause in their TOS then they'd be leaving themselves open to users suing them.

[Dan-o]

I will be removing my photos as well.

Hoff, Fox News just ran a story on this and they said that deleting the content from your site doesn't actually delete it from Facebook servers. If you put it up there and then deleted it it is still theirs.

I think if the news is starting to report on this then it will come to a head here real quick.

[hollis_f]

Thanks for he post. Might have to remove my photos now....

You'd better remove them from Flickr too. Here's their TOS...
(b) With respect to Content you elect to post for inclusion in publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups or that consists of photos or other graphics you elect to post to any other publicly accessible area of the Services, you grant Yahoo! a world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish such Content on the Services solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted, or, in the case of photos or graphics, solely for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted to the Services. This licence exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Services and shall be terminated at the time you delete such Content from the Services.
(c) With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Yahoo! the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.
and JPG
By uploading (or otherwise submitting) Submission(s) to the Services, you:

grant to 8020 a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, limited license to use, publish, reproduce, display, distribute, use for Promotional Purposes (defined below), and sublicense for Cross-Promotional Purposes (defined below) such Submission(s), either through print, online, or other media (collectively, "Publicize"); and Model Mayhem
When you post content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the content on the Site. Through the action of posting such content (images, text, video, etc) you are also granting the Site a non-exclusive worldwide license to use, copy, publicly display, publicly perform, reformat, translate such User content (in whole or in part) and distribute such content in connection with operation of the Site.

[TheHoff]

Hoff, Fox News just ran a story on this and they said that deleting the content from your site doesn't actually delete it from Facebook servers. If you put it up there and then deleted it it is still theirs.

I think if the news is starting to report on this then it will come to a head here real quick.

Well yea that is the whole dispute over the TOS. But leaving them up there does nothing -- if they see that people are removing content over this they may adjust it to be more considerate of user's wishes to remove the content permanently. I understand their need to transmit the content to other users on the system but combine that perpetuity with their other language and it is not a photographer-friendly TOS.

[thebishopp]

"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."

What some people are not realizing is that this is a pretty broad brush.

This means (regardless of what some pr press release says) is just what it says. Basically they could use your picture for advertising just about anything as long as it's " on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof."

To use an extreme example they could put your picture on a genitial herpes medicine commercial as long as the ad had some type of facebook promotion on it (listed as a sponsor or supporter) or the advertiser was a facebook client who advertises on facebook as it would definately be "in connection with the facebook service or the promotion thereof" as the funds from the advertiser would go to support facebook.

[thebishopp]

You'd better remove them from Flickr too. Here's their TOS..


Hollis, I think the difference is in the highlighted portions as far as flickr is concerned:

b) With respect to Content you elect to post for inclusion in publicly accessible areas of Yahoo! Groups or that consists of photos or other graphics you elect to post to any other publicly accessible area of the Services, you grant Yahoo! a world-wide, royalty free and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish such Content on the Services solely for the purpose of displaying, distributing and promoting the specific Yahoo! Group to which such Content was submitted, or, in the case of photos or graphics, solely for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted to the Services. This licence exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Services and shall be terminated at the time you delete such Content from the Services.
(c) With respect to all other Content you elect to post to other publicly accessible areas of the Services, you grant Yahoo! the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and licence to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.

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

There is an exception made for publically accessable content (you can turn off public access on your flickr account) as well as for photos versus "other" content. In addition it states the license is not only "soley for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted" but that the license is also terminated upon deletion of the content.

that is ALOT different from the Facebook TOS.

If you notice Facebooks TOS grants an IRREVOCABLE and PERPETUAL license (no mention of a "limited" license) and there is specific wording granting use for any type of advertising/commercial use which promotes facebook (reference my other post). Just in case you aren't seeing it the post you made for flickr's tos states: "solely for the purpose for which such photo or graphic was submitted to the Services".

I'm surprised you didn't notice this when you posted that... either that or you ignored it. It appears that you wish to defend facebook for some reason but the facts are that there is a BIG difference between the TOS for flickr you posted and the TOS that facebook is currently employing.

[Derweissehai]

Well one way to look at it is that if they remove the copyright from the photo then you have them on copyright infringement at least. All mine are inbeded and then post across the photo it's self.

They are just making it harder for us as artists to make a living.By staling out hopes and dreams.

[ssracer]

If you trun off public access to your photos on flickr can you still imbed the image in an <img> tag and have it show up in a message board such as this?

[LowriderS10]

Bishopp has it! Yes, other sites are covering their butts, which is fair enough, but you can't compare FB's TOS w/ Flickr's. NOWHERE does it say on Flickr that they'll sell your name and picture to be used as they see fit. Nowhere does it say on Flickr that they'll sell your photograph to be used in any possible manner.

I've stripped my Facebook to the bare minimum (name and BS birthdate) until that policy changes. TheHoff is completely right too, btw. If everyone were to remove all user-added content, it would send a message...

You'd think FB would be happy with the loads of cash they're making with all the ads everywhere...greedy ****ers.

[thebishopp]

Well one way to look at it is that if they remove the copyright from the photo then you have them on copyright infringement at least. All mine are inbeded and then post across the photo it's self.

They are just making it harder for us as artists to make a living.By staling out hopes and dreams.

No you can't. Their TOS is all inclusive.

Removing the WATERMARK (I believe you are referring to that as it is a seperate offense under copyright law) is well within the TOS as stated. Remember the TOS grants them editing rights. Though it would have to be a picture worth the labor intensive job of removing a watermark (unless of course the watermark is easily removable - ie; not platered over the images as on some pics some creative cropping is more than enough to cut out a watermark).

[LowriderS10]

If you trun off public access to your photos on flickr can you still imbed the image in an <img> tag and have it show up in a message board such as this?

I believe so...my privacy settings are way up there for my photobucket and yet I can hotlink them...

[pmk]

Anti-Facebook TOS Group -- 28,000+ people and growing:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=77069107432

pmk

[thebishopp]

Here is myspace's tos as it applies to photos:

MySpace does not claim any ownership rights in the text, files, images, photos, video, sounds, musical works, works of authorship, applications, or any other materials (collectively, "Content") that you post on or through the MySpace Services. After posting your Content to the MySpace Services, you continue to retain any such rights that you may have in your Content, subject to the limited license herein. By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the MySpace Services, you hereby grant to MySpace a limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce, and distribute such Content solely on or through the MySpace Services, including without limitation distributing part or all of the MySpace Website in any media formats and through any media channels, except Content marked “private” will not be distributed outside the MySpace Website. This limited license does not grant MySpace the right to sell or otherwise distribute your Content outside of the MySpace Services. After you remove your Content from the MySpace Website we will cease distribution as soon as practicable, and at such time when distribution ceases, the license will terminate. If after we have distributed your Content outside the MySpace Website you change the Content’s privacy setting to “private,” we will cease distribution of such “private” Content outside the MySpace Website as soon as practicable after you make the change.
------------------------

You will notice another BIG difference between the Myspace TOS and Facebook's.

[TheHoff]

You'd think FB would be happy with the loads of cash they're making with all the ads everywhere...greedy ****ers.

Facebook does not turn a profit. Their network of servers and amount of bandwidth used is immense.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/technology/hempel_facebook.fortune/

[Derweissehai]

Just removed all my photos from facebook including the fan page

[TheHoff]

Just removed all my photos from facebook including the fan page

Ugh I have 47 galleries I've shared with family that I'd have to replace. I'm waiting another day or three.

[LowriderS10]

Facebook does not turn a profit. Their network of servers and amount of bandwidth used is immense.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/16/technology/hempel_facebook.fortune/

Being a reporter I'm kind of leery of "sources close to the company say" BS.

"The site pulled in estimated revenues of just $280 million last year, and sources close to the company say it didn't break even. "

Give me a number or give me someone from the top of the food chain who says "Yes, it costs us 350 mil to run, and we only made 280 mil"...I would be VERY surprised if those "sources close to the company" were actually right...but, who knows.

[TheHoff]

Being a reporter I'm kind of leery of "sources close to the company say" BS.

Being a high-traffic web apps developer and a previous dot-commer, I know that very, very few large websites turn any sort of profit. This isn't news, is it? They've been searching for a workable business model for over a year now.

I think the evidence that they turn a profit because they "have a lot of ads" is dubious logic, at best. They actually don't have that many ads relative to other sites of the same size.

But since they are not public, no one can truly know.

[zacker]

how does one make $280 mill and NOT turn a profit? Could it actually cost that much to run a website? how are they still in business then? and why arent they begging congress for a bailout?? Id rather give my money to them than some bankers who just want to use it for a party.


seriously, I sak because i have no clue what it costs to run a site like that.. but $280 mill is A LOT of moolah!

[LowriderS10]

Being a high-traffic web apps developer and a previous dot-commer, I know that very, very few large websites turn any sort of profit. This isn't news, is it? They've been searching for a workable business model for over a year now.

I think the evidence that they turn a profit because they "have a lot of ads" is dubious logic, at best. They actually don't have that many ads relative to other sites of the same size.

But since they are not public, no one can truly know.

For sure, I'm not doubting you...all I'm saying is I'll need something better from CNN than "a source close to the company" who decided to remain anonymous before I actually believe that FB is not turning a profit.

[TheHoff]

>>how does one make $280 mill and NOT turn a profit?

First, bandwidth. Second, server costs and upkeep. Third, programming. Fourth, adminsitration.


>>Could it actually cost that much to run a website?

Definitely.


>>how are they still in business then?

Venture capital. They are one of the few dot-coms that can still pull in new capital in this economy. Of course this is still hearsay and company-provided information since they are not public...

The fact is that for every million new accounts added to Facebook it requires close to $1 Million in capital to support those accounts.

As Owen Thomas points out in a post all these new members means that Facebook should be spending close to $5 million per week on servers and other computing infrastructure. Additionally from what can be gleaned from the company’s financials Facebook isn’t even covering the cost of its operations let alone being able to make enough profit to pay for its capital investments.


http://www.inquisitr.com/18205/could-facebook-spend-its-way-into-oblivion/

[Perry Ge]

A very helpful link comparing facebook's TOS to sites like myspace, picasa, flickr, youtube, etc. I've taken down all my photos on facebook.

http://amandafrench.net/2009/02/16/facebook-terms-of-service-compared/

[adam*]

I'm in the lengthy process of removing all mine now.

[Derweissehai]

just put it in my blog...let's see if it can get out there:

http://awhitesphotography.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/facebooknot-so-cool-now-new-tos-rules/

[adam*]

I've removed all of mine now besides ones with friends in who are tagged. Those TOS are shocking.

[cdifoto]

Fortunately for me Facebook wasn't a real "hub of activity" so it didn't have much on it to begin with, but I've pulled everything and deactivated out of principle.

[HSK]

So what is it exactly - they still want all the right to your pictures or not? I thought they gave clarification stating it isn't like that - but articles keep popping up saying they do...

[thebishopp]

So what is it exactly - they still want all the right to your pictures or not? I thought they gave clarification stating it isn't like that - but articles keep popping up saying they do...

The thing is HSK it doesn't matter what their press releases say as long as their Terms of Service stays in effect with the current wording. A good example is a commercial on awhile back where this kid on a bike meets a cleptomaniac. The picture switches back and forth between the kid and the clepto. Whenever it does you notice that the clepto is wearing or has something that had belonged to the kid. The kid of course questions this to which the clepto basically says he is imagining things. In the end the clepto rides off with the kids bike, helmet, clothes, and the kid is left standing there in his underwear not knowing what exactly has happened.

It also doesn't bode well for the future of intellectual property (IP) on facebook as it is possible that even if they do change their TOS, they have established a reputation and will have to be closely watched in the future if one continues to use their service.

Also I think it is clear based on other sites' TOS (flickr, myspace, among others listed in the link provided by another poster) that Facebook went above and beyond in what appears to be an attempt to grab people's "IP".

They could of easily kept their old TOS or, if it was deemed insufficient, to model theirs after others. Instead they used specific wording which seemed designed to secure ownership rights to their users' IP for commercial purposes and for indeterminate lengths of time.

[nphsbuckeye]

No you can't. Their TOS is all inclusive.

Removing the WATERMARK (I believe you are referring to that as it is a seperate offense under copyright law) is well within the TOS as stated. Remember the TOS grants them editing rights. Though it would have to be a picture worth the labor intensive job of removing a watermark (unless of course the watermark is easily removable - ie; not platered over the images as on some pics some creative cropping is more than enough to cut out a watermark).
Regardless of their TOS, I doubt that the copyright would hold up in court. If a person has a complicated watermark, the person wants that to be their intellectual property and took great lengths to save it and FB would go to greater lengths to erase it, knowing very well that the person wanted the image to be his or hers. In addiction to, the artist would more than likely take it much more serious than the stereotypical image on FB of some house kegger. I don't know about copyrights and legalese as some here, but it seems that FB's TOS would save itself against those not really serious about protecting his or her images, not against people making a concerted effort to know their ownership known.

[LowriderS10]

something tells me it WOULD hold up in court, since you're voluntarily uploading the pics and you're voluntarily clicking the "I Agree" button on their TOS...it's not like they hacked your Flickr and stole your pics...

[nphsbuckeye]

something tells me it WOULD hold up in court, since you're voluntarily uploading the pics and you're voluntarily clicking the "I Agree" button on their TOS...it's not like they hacked your Flickr and stole your pics...
It's not like a TOS for software that you can't make illegal copies, this is taking ones work and telling them that it can be stolen if you want to share it with friends. Afterall, isn't this a medium?

[LowriderS10]

Yeah, but it's a private website. Their rules apply. You're basically saying that in exchange for using their free services of hosting your pictures so you could share it with your friends whose profiles (and yours) they host, you're giving them absolute rights to your work.

You gotta remember that it's not like you post it on this website and another user comes on and steals it. You did not consent to that.

However, you DO consent to joining FB, you voluntarily post the picture and you voluntarily agree to let them use it in any way they see fit.

[thebishopp]

It's not like a TOS for software that you can't make illegal copies, this is taking ones work and telling them that it can be stolen if you want to share it with friends. Afterall, isn't this a medium?

Think of the TOS as the contract that you agree to for use of their service.... which is exactly what it is.

Whatever you would have to prove to invalidate a contract in court is what you would have to do with Facebook.

In the end I believe the court would most likely say (most likely because who knows which way the wind blows these days) that you knew the terms of the agreement when you uploaded your photos and by doing so you accepted the contract between you and Facebook and if you didn't you had time to remove your photos once you became aware of the Facebook's new TOS aka Contract for use of their service as a social networking site.

Keep in mind it's not like joining and uploading photos to Facebook was a life or death matter and that you had to do so. Two ways to invalidate a contract are negligence and duress which I don't think you could prove either. Like lowrider said it is a voluntary service which you are choosing to utilize and have agreed to their TOS/contract in order to do so. So unless they put a gun to your head and said join and upload or die I doubt you will have much luck in convincing a court to invalidate your contract with Facebook.

You really need to look at the wording of Facebook's tos as well as the wording of others listed (flickr/myspace) to see the major differences and the potential issues.

[nphsbuckeye]

Think of the TOS as the contract that you agree to for use of their service.... which is exactly what it is.

Whatever you would have to prove to invalidate a contract in court is what you would have to do with Facebook.

In the end I believe the court would most likely say (most likely because who knows which way the wind blows these days) that you knew the terms of the agreement when you uploaded your photos and by doing so you accepted the contract between you and Facebook and if you didn't you had time to remove your photos once you became aware of the Facebook's new TOS aka Contract for use of their service as a social networking site.

Keep in mind it's not like joining and uploading photos to Facebook was a life or death matter and that you had to do so. Two ways to invalidate a contract are negligence and duress which I don't think you could prove either. Like lowrider said it is a voluntary service which you are choosing to utilize and have agreed to their TOS/contract in order to do so. So unless they put a gun to your head and said join and upload or die I doubt you will have much luck in convincing a court to invalidate your contract with Facebook.

You really need to look at the wording of Facebook's tos as well as the wording of others listed (flickr/myspace) to see the major differences and the potential issues.
Right, I'm aware of what they'd say. But if they go so far to remove the watermark of people's photographs stripping the photographer of his or her ownership, that shows the concerted effort by FB to take away someone's property.

Although FB is a private company, it costs the user no dollar amount to join. The courts would have to decide how private is a company with free membership. (If it cost money like SmugMug, Zenfolio, etc, the website would have more leeway, however, those companies have a different cliental and would don't hordes of drunk pictures either.)

[ofdphoto]

Some of you seem to have lost the plot:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/social_network/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214303433&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News

Besides which, if you really think Facebook would WANT to do anything untoward with your precious pictures (aside from show them to your friends and allow them to play with them), when we're talking about hundreds of millions of pictures uploaded every few months (at a guess, which is no doubt why their JPEG compression is dismal), then you're missing the point of the TOS.

There are far too many non-lawyers trying to assess a necessarily complex legal document here. Those who have summarily deleted their photos and/or accounts are simply proving that they're vulnerable to media hype.

[TheHoff]

I don't understand their need for perpetuity in the language. I (totally) understand the need to keep data that you've sent to others so it is still accessible to them but this should not apply to photos if you have forcibly removed your own account. You should be able to remove all traces of what you've added to the system, no matter whom you've sent it to, when you delete your account. I don't care if someone else's mailbox is a little confused that I removed a photo.

[LowriderS10]

Some of you seem to have lost the plot:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/social_network/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214303433&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News

Besides which, if you really think Facebook would WANT to do anything untoward with your precious pictures (aside from show them to your friends and allow them to play with them), when we're talking about hundreds of millions of pictures uploaded every few months (at a guess, which is no doubt why their JPEG compression is dismal), then you're missing the point of the TOS.

There are far too many non-lawyers trying to assess a necessarily complex legal document here. Those who have summarily deleted their photos and/or accounts are simply proving that they're vulnerable to media hype.

If, as you say, Facebook doesn't want to do anything untoward with my pictures why are they explicitly stating that they have the right to do anything and everything untoward they can possibly think of?

I don't make my girlfriend sign a written contract saying she won't sue me if I slap her around, 'cuz I have no intentions of slapping her around, therefore it won't be an issue...it's a harsh comparison, but you get the drift, right?

[ofdphoto]

They're not protecting *their* right to do anything and everything ... they're protecting the right of your friends on Facebook to do anything and everything. This is a necessary precaution in the world of social networking.

[LowriderS10]

They're not protecting *their* right to do anything and everything ... they're protecting the right of your friends on Facebook to do anything and everything. This is a necessary precaution in the world of social networking.

Then how come the wording is much less Fascist for other social networking websites, such as MySpace?

And that's BS, it explicitly says you give FACEBOOK the right to do anything and everything, not Facebook USERS.

[ofdphoto]

Then how come the wording is much less Fascist for other social networking websites, such as MySpace?

And that's BS, it explicitly says you give FACEBOOK the right to do anything and everything, not Facebook USERS.
Exactly. It gives *Facebook* the right to *assign rights* on your content to its *users* (your friends). How else do you think Facebook can do what it does, all day, every day?

As for Myspace, I've never studied its TOS. Given Myspace is such a hotbed of copyright violation, I'm sure it's less thorough. Facebook are probably ahead of the game in covering themselves.

[LowriderS10]

Exactly. It gives *Facebook* the right to *assign rights* on your content to its *users* (your friends). How else do you think Facebook can do what it does, all day, every day?

As for Myspace, I've never studied its TOS. Given Myspace is such a hotbed of copyright violation, I'm sure it's less thorough. Facebook are probably ahead of the game in covering themselves.

Really? I'm sure that this shouldn't be part of their day-to-day operations:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to ... use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising

That's in addition to granting them rights to use any and all of my pictures in any and all manner they see fit...no thanks.

[HSK]

I guess there was only so much personal details they could sell - now they've turned to user content. :p

[ofdphoto]

Really? I'm sure that this shouldn't be part of their day-to-day operations:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to ... use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising

That's in addition to granting them rights to use any and all of my pictures in any and all manner they see fit...no thanks.
Perhaps they're covering themselves for situations where their day-to-day use could be construed as commercial use? e.g. public listings where they invite you to join Facebook to befriend the person listed?

I see it all as a big butt-covering exercise, little more. I do hope they respond adequately sooner rather than later, tho.

[alduin]

I'm sure it *IS* a big butt-covering exercise. The way it's worded, though, seems to give Facebook a lot more rights over users' content than they want/need.

[cdifoto]

Some of you seem to have lost the plot:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/social_network/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=214303433&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News

Besides which, if you really think Facebook would WANT to do anything untoward with your precious pictures (aside from show them to your friends and allow them to play with them), when we're talking about hundreds of millions of pictures uploaded every few months (at a guess, which is no doubt why their JPEG compression is dismal), then you're missing the point of the TOS.

There are far too many non-lawyers trying to assess a necessarily complex legal document here. Those who have summarily deleted their photos and/or accounts are simply proving that they're vulnerable to media hype.
That's rubbish. That "necessarily complex legal document" is expected to be read, understood, and agreed to by average non-lawyers who sign up to use Facebook.

[TheHoff]

That's rubbish. That "necessarily complex legal document" is expected to be read, understood, and agreed to by average non-lawyers who sign up to use Facebook.

[ ] Check this box to signify that you agree, and have had your lawyer on retainer review, Facebook's Terms of Service.

[LowriderS10]

Perhaps they're covering themselves for situations where their day-to-day use could be construed as commercial use? e.g. public listings where they invite you to join Facebook to befriend the person listed?

I see it all as a big butt-covering exercise, little more. I do hope they respond adequately sooner rather than later, tho.

Is it possible that you are correct and that this is little more than a big butt-covering exercise? ABSOLUTELY!!!

Does it leave the door open to sell my personal info to a Nigerian scammer, take my pictures and sell it to someone wanting stock pictures and then sell pictures of me and my g/f on our holidays to Viagara and throw the caption "I couldn't get it up at 27...but look how happy I'm now!!! Thanks Viagara" over it? yes...

And that's the part I have a problem with...there's no limit as to what they COULD do with the content...and that's not a risk I'm willing to take in exchange for the privilege of posting pics on a ****ty website.

[ofdphoto]

That's rubbish. That "necessarily complex legal document" is expected to be read, understood, and agreed to by average non-lawyers who sign up to use Facebook.

[ ] Check this box to signify that you agree, and have had your lawyer on retainer review, Facebook's Terms of Service.

Alright, fair call :)

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

[ofdphoto]

Is it possible that you are correct and that this is little more than a big butt-covering exercise? ABSOLUTELY!!!

Does it leave the door open to sell my personal info to a Nigerian scammer, take my pictures and sell it to someone wanting stock pictures and then sell pictures of me and my g/f on our holidays to Viagara and throw the caption "I couldn't get it up at 27...but look how happy I'm now!!! Thanks Viagara" over it? yes...

And that's the part I have a problem with...there's no limit as to what they COULD do with the content...and that's not a risk I'm willing to take in exchange for the privilege of posting pics on a ****ty website.
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.

[nphsbuckeye]

Really? I'm sure that this shouldn't be part of their day-to-day operations:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to ... use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising

That's in addition to granting them rights to use any and all of my pictures in any and all manner they see fit...no thanks.
That's how I read it: they can do whatever they want to the photos, including removing my PITA watermarks.:cool:

[LowriderS10]

That's how I read it: they can do whatever they want to the photos, including removing my PITA watermarks.:cool:

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

Yup...the editing clause takes care of that...Hell, if they wanted to, they could use a picture of me and my g/f kissing, photoshop a different girl or a different guy in there, they could do ANYTHING...

[Bosscat]

This is plain and utter BS IMO. If John Q Public goes to a horse show and has Harry Horseshooter take his picture, and John Q buys a 4x6 print of said picture, and then scans it into his computer and then posts it on facebook and clicks that he agrees to the TOS, John Q just committed a crime in the first place. John Q does not even own the rights to do so with said picture in the 1st place,

I still wonder what facebook is gonna do with my 150k files? Sell them to Time and Cosmo?

[HSK]

Who knows - they already sell and market on personal details, if they can put a face to a name, that's even more personal. :| (i'm getting a lil' carried away).

[tonybear007]

I hope this results in the demise of Facebook UNLESS they reconsider the TOS.

[alduin]

Who knows - they already sell and market on personal details, if they can put a face to a name, that's even more personal. :| (i'm getting a lil' carried away).

If? There's already a feature that lets people tag other people in photos.

BRB, need more tin foil.

[HSK]

If? There's already a feature that lets people tag other people in photos.

BRB, need more tin foil.Sorry, I meant beyond the confines of facebook ;)

Does the tin foil block out the signals?

[alduin]

Some.

Not nearly enough, though. :p

[HSK]

Ha, ok that's enough paranoia from me today - time to get back to work. We'll see if facebook come through...I'm not sure though.

[LowriderS10]

I still wonder what facebook is gonna do with my 150k files? Sell them to Time and Cosmo?

You're not the first one to bring this up...you guys are thinking too big.

The money is in small stuff...you know, all the little ads you see everywhere (also, they'll ask less questions than Cosmo would)...and for those, the little 600x600 or 150k files are PLENTY...

I mean, I'd be more concerned about your wife/daughter/mom's picture appearing on a "MEET HOT SINGLES IN YOUR AREA" ad on the sidebar...and they only need about 10k worth of pic for that ;)

Or how about your happy, smiling profile picture with the caption "I got my herpes medicine for $5 from internetdrugsforidiots.com ....YOU CAN TOO"...they don't need more than 150k for that one...

[TheHoff]

People would bail the instant that happened. Facebook would be dead within a month.

The problem is the "perpetuity" in the TOS license that if they sold themselves to someone else, it seems like the images you uploaded would follow.

[Bosscat]

You're not the first one to bring this up...you guys are thinking too big.

The money is in small stuff...you know, all the little ads you see everywhere (also, they'll ask less questions than Cosmo would)...and for those, the little 600x600 or 150k files are PLENTY...

I mean, I'd be more concerned about your wife/daughter/mom's picture appearing on a "MEET HOT SINGLES IN YOUR AREA" ad on the sidebar...and they only need about 10k worth of pic for that ;)

Or how about your happy, smiling profile picture with the caption "I got my herpes medicine for $5 from internetdrugsforidiots.com ....YOU CAN TOO"...they don't need more than 150k for that one...


I'm not married nor do I have any kids, and my profile pic is a sprint car shot, and I didn't know that you could get herpes from a sprint car....LOL.

I'll have to be more careful at the track this year :oops::oops::oops:

[LowriderS10]

People would bail the instant that happened. Facebook would be dead within a month.



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...

[thebishopp]

That's rubbish. That "necessarily complex legal document" is expected to be read, understood, and agreed to by average non-lawyers who sign up to use Facebook.

Agreed pure rubbish. Also I don't think that the facebook TOS is a "necessarily complex legal document". The part in question is one paragraph of fairly simple language.

If someone thinks it's complex I would suggest they go back to school, maybe buy a dictionary if they are a little fuzzy on what words mean.

Linarms I can't believe you need a lawyer to understand that paragraph. When someone tells you 2 plus 2 equals four do we need a professor of mathmatics to confirm this for us?

[thebishopp]

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.


LOL... if the contract states that they have the right to commerical/advertising use, how can you say they don't actually mean that !?

LOL... you know what they say about "assuming". The fact is that the words mean what they mean and the context they are used in defines that meaning further.

In a contract dispute I think you would hard pressed to win your argument about thinking a word meant less than what it means LOL.

[C.S.I.]

I just received a message from Facebook, stating that they are reverting back to the OLD TOS........(for now) :lol:

[LowriderS10]

I just received a message from Facebook, stating that they are reverting back to the OLD TOS........(for now) :lol:

Could you please coppy/paste it? I haven't gotten anything like that...

[Perry Ge]

Yup I got it too. Just log in and you see this when you're in the "home" page:

"Terms of Use Update
Over the past few days, we have received a lot of good 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."

[LowriderS10]

Yup I got it too. Just log in and you see this when you're in the "home" page:

"Terms of Use Update
Over the past few days, we have received a lot of good 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."

http://web.mst.edu/~ddavison/temp/BoratSuccess2.jpg

[ofdphoto]

Agreed pure rubbish. Also I don't think that the facebook TOS is a "necessarily complex legal document". The part in question is one paragraph of fairly simple language.

If someone thinks it's complex I would suggest they go back to school, maybe buy a dictionary if they are a little fuzzy on what words mean.

Linarms I can't believe you need a lawyer to understand that paragraph. When someone tells you 2 plus 2 equals four do we need a professor of mathmatics to confirm this for us?

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

LOL... if the contract states that they have the right to commerical/advertising use, how can you say they don't actually mean that !?

LOL... you know what they say about "assuming". The fact is that the words mean what they mean and the context they are used in defines that meaning further.

In a contract dispute I think you would hard pressed to win your argument about thinking a word meant less than what it means LOL.

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.

[cdifoto]

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.
Of course the fact that they're going back to the original TOS, even if temporarily, means that it's sufficient for their operations and the new TOS was overkill.

Basically they tried, they failed, they retreated. My profile will stay empty and deactivated because they're already dirty as far as I'm concerned.

[LowriderS10]

Of course the fact that they're going back to the original TOS, even if temporarily, means that it's sufficient for their operations and the new TOS was overkill.

.

*ding ding ding* we have a winner. Exactly...if it was so necessary for them to have it, they would never have abandoned it and potentially left themselves open to harm...they got greedy, wanted it all, and got busted...

[M_ark]

Yup I got it too. Just log in and you see this when you're in the "home" page:

"Terms of Use Update
Over the past few days, we have received a lot of good 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."

Funny, mine reads different!
"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."

the adjective "good" is entirely omitted!

clearly the use of this expression was also a point of contention for some...
:confused:

[Perry Ge]

Of course the fact that they're going back to the original TOS, even if temporarily, means that it's sufficient for their operations and the new TOS was overkill.

Basically they tried, they failed, they retreated. My profile will stay empty and deactivated because they're already dirty as far as I'm concerned.
EPIC WIN.
Funny, mine reads different!
"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."

the adjective "good" is entirely omitted!

clearly the use of this expression was also a point of contention for some...
:confused:

:lol::lol:

[drummerhc]

With a such bad picture quality on facebook, I don't really care actually.

[Pete]

A blog entry made by facebook on Monday.

Source:- http://blog.facebook.com/

A couple of weeks ago, we updated our terms of use to clarify a few points for our users. A number of people have raised questions about our changes, so I'd like to address those here. I'll also take the opportunity to explain how we think about people's information.

Our philosophy is that people own their information and control who they share it with. When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they've asked us to share it with. Without this license, we couldn't help people share that information.

One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever. When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created—one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear.

In reality, we wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want. The trust you place in us as a safe place to share information is the most important part of what makes Facebook work. Our goal is to build great products and to communicate clearly to help people share more information in this trusted environment.

We still have work to do to communicate more clearly about these issues, and our terms are one example of this. Our philosophy that people own their information and control who they share it with has remained constant. A lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective of the rights we need to provide this service to you. Over time we will continue to clarify our positions and make the terms simpler.

Still, the interesting thing about this change in our terms is that it highlights the importance of these issues and their complexity. People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them—like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on—to other services and grant those services access to those people's information. These two positions are at odds with each other. There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with.

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, but as the leading service for sharing information we take these issues and our responsibility to help resolve them very seriously. This is a big focus for us this year, and I'll post some more thoughts on openness and these other issues soon.

(My bold)

[TheHoff]

Still, Pete -- worst case scenario:

Facebook is bought by some larger company.

New owners aren't as nice and decide to do something untowards with your images like put them in an image search to drive traffic without your privacy settings applying.

You decide to delete your account.

Too bad, they have license in perpetuity even if your account is deleted and even if another ownership team takes over.

That is my issue. (my bold)

[Pete]

The same can be said about any place online that you use to host images.

What happens if someone bought Smugmug and decided to change the terms and conditions there, allowing them to take ownership and rights to anyone's galleries?

[TheHoff]

The same can be said about any place online that you use to host images.

What happens if someone bought Smugmug and decided to change the terms and conditions there, allowing them to take ownership and rights to anyone's galleries?

But that TOS is in place at Facebook right now. I uploaded family shots under it today and if the site were bought all of the images would go right along with them. Who cares, right? Well the principle matters.

If Smugmug were sold you would then have the opportunity to decide whether to keep your account there or delete it before the site and TOS was changed. Facebook already did it (well and then they revoked it).

[TheHoff]

And as was said, the previous TOS seemed to work just fine for them with the media sharing between users and no extension of their rights with the new TOS is obviously necessary.

[Pete]

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.

[TMCCaptured]

I saw this post and decided that enough was enough. I simple put on my Facebook a comment: I have agreed not to state the content but it goes along the lines of... Facebook you theiving shhhh hits you will no longer steal my images. I will not tolerate my images being used without my reasoning.

Needless to say my page was taken down so My wife proved to be the best launching pad where she wrote about what happened. Here is part of the email I recieved from face book. The rest states that in no way would they use my photos and images without my permission. Due to an understanding ($$$$) I have agreed not to share the entire email I was sent.

However they have agreed to change their agreement to the original and well lets say I believe them.

To me I have gained more from this one post than I have from my total revenue from my short career in Photography.


Terms of Use UpdateClose
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.

If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.

Who said us small people cant win!!!!

[primoz]

They made a mistake in their wording.
Realistically... do you really believe company worth of few $100mio (I'm too lazy to go and check their real value) with enough lawyers employed to populate smaller city, would make wording mistake in their legal documents? ;) I doubt, but it's nice excuse ;)

[TMCCaptured]

That was my same argument. No mistake in the wording just a blatant misuse of power. Our neighbour has his own law practise and worded my response to great effect.
With our success I owe the staff of his practise Portrait shots for free. I extended this to include their families as a thank you for the work he had done (it took him no more than 40 minutes to draft the letter (this included New Zealand, USA and International Copyright laws). It will cost me a few hours of my time.
Now I can extend my garage, purchase some needed studio equipment (and invest the rest).

Everything happened in a very short time frame. I always thought that cases like this would drag out for months if not longer.

[adam*]

Well looks like they've backed down, all my photos are removed now anyway so it's too late.

[M_ark]

i just went to: http://www.facebook.com/terms.php
and found:
you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide licence (with the right to sublicence) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorise sublicences of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time.
-----------------
I wonder when they are going to change it? or revert or whatever?

[cgatto]

They already have. It's been changed back to the original, for the time being. Log onto facebook and you will see this :

"Terms of Use Update
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.

If you want to share your thoughts on what should be in the new terms, check out our group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities."

[mbellot]

But that TOS is in place at Facebook right now. I uploaded family shots under it today and if the site were bought all of the images would go right along with them. Who cares, right? Well the principle matters.

If Smugmug were sold you would then have the opportunity to decide whether to keep your account there or delete it before the site and TOS was changed. Facebook already did it (well and then they revoked it).

Interesting (academic now) question...

Did FB ask current users to (re)agree to the new TOS with the option to clear out if they didn't?

Seems the "contract" would be hard to enforce if its changed after its been accepted unless the changes are also accepted.

Its good to see FB claims they will be changing back, but one has to wonder how long before this happens again.

[alduin]

Interesting (academic now) question...

Did FB ask current users to (re)agree to the new TOS with the option to clear out if they didn't?

Seems the "contract" would be hard to enforce if its changed after its been accepted unless the changes are also accepted.

Its good to see FB claims they will be changing back, but one has to wonder how long before this happens again.

No, they didn't. I think they were just relying on the "These terms subject to change without any notice whatsoever" clause.

[TheHoff]

That was my same argument. No mistake in the wording just a blatant misuse of power. Our neighbour has his own law practise and worded my response to great effect.
With our success I owe the staff of his practise Portrait shots for free. I extended this to include their families as a thank you for the work he had done (it took him no more than 40 minutes to draft the letter (this included New Zealand, USA and International Copyright laws). It will cost me a few hours of my time.
Now I can extend my garage, purchase some needed studio equipment (and invest the rest).

Everything happened in a very short time frame. I always thought that cases like this would drag out for months if not longer.

Huh? If I can translate what you've said it sounds like you're claiming Facebook settled with you out of court, in a matter of hours, for a sum of money because you claimed they used your images? WTH are you talking about?

[nphsbuckeye]

"Mistake," right, more like a mistake of how people would judge it.