I agree that we all need to be more aware of the implications of using free Web services. But, at the same time, we are not impotent to affect change on Facebook regarding the Terms of Service. I've created a Facebook group to try to mobilize reaction and call on Facebook to change things back: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=683350579...
I hope others will join in and together our voices can be heard in the halls of Zuckerberg ;-)
Peace, Steve K.
Max Kennerly
· 10 months ago
Big picture here isn't new TOS, it's that they claim to retain the right even if you leave the service. That's different, new, and scary.
The old web bargain was, "we can do whatever we want with your content, if you don't like it, leave and we'll stop."
New bargain is "... if you don't like it, too bad, stay off the site, we're the 800-lbs gorilla."
They're begging for a test-suit against them -- just need one user to quit and file a declaratory judgment about rights to their content.
Moreover, they REALLY bungled the roll-out. Your credit card company mails you every single change to your terms of service -- Facebook just slipped it in. It'll be awfully hard for them to argue that existing users "consented" to that change by continuing to use the service."
Chase Granberry
· 10 months ago
If we had the choice ... how would we have gotten our data out of Facebook, and then where would we have put it? People are making this a big deal because it's Facebook. If I paid for the service, I should own my data, but if it's free, well that's the price of having an account.
Mike B.
· 10 months ago
This really does make you second guess what you put on Facebook now more importantly than before. When I saw a tweet about this the couple days ago, I was pretty pissed not cause I have something to hide but to know I no longer have control over MY content.
@bookerx3
Sheamus
· 10 months ago
I'm not worried at all about Facebook. Despite the fear I don't think it's really in their interest to exploit their users personal information.
Also, FB isn't searchable on Google. That goes a long way toward giving you reasonable privacy. As you say, Google both own your content and make it publically available. Companies already use Google searches to vet employees, but that's part of business and doesn't worry me either. My concern? My kids. In X years, they'll be able to trace my entire online history, and believe me, it ain't all pretty. :)
Beth Bridges
· 10 months ago
Should we really be surprised by this? Our stuff is out there... I've always operated from the premise that the Internet is permanent.
It would have been nice if Facebook had let people know in advance, but I think the number of people who really care will be very small. Those who would strongly react probably aren't there in the first place.
Gen X is going to be weirded out for a few minutes, shrug their shoulders and move on. Gen Y took it as a given in the first place. The Millennials won't have any expectation of privacy at all.
vesa
· 10 months ago
Hey Chris, thanks for this post , it's really woke me up. I think people are installing 3rd party apps without thinking of <acronym title="Terms Of Service">TOS</acronym> and now suddenly they are puzzled out because of this change.
James Poulter
· 10 months ago
I agree, and then at the same time I don't.
Put this into a practical example for a second. About 2 years ago I started posting the poety I write on a poetry app on facebook as well as in my notes section. Under these new terms is Facebook saying they now own the copy write to that material? If so, what happens when my book deal finally comes off? Who then owns it? Facebook, my publisher, me? Who?
Answers on a postcard - for more details see @lewiswebbs guestpost on my blog today - http://bit.ly/fgttu
Cheers
Rajtilak Bhattacharjee
· 10 months ago
Suddenly people are going berserk over the new TOS of Facebook, but wasn't it implied that whatever we post on the net does not remain ours anymore?
Even the posts on our blog are not our anymore. They are ideas, and once published, acquired by millions on the net. What do people have to say to that. If that is acceptable then why this hoopla over the new TOS of Facebook!
AnotherGuy
· 10 months ago
That makes a lot of sense, but it still seems a bit too far from where it should be. I mean, the way that they word the TOS it seems as though they want to use you content for anything, not just publishing it on their free service websites. If they just wanted to be able to do that, then the TOS would reflect said mannerisms.
Also, the internet is still very young. We have no idea what the long term consequences are of having such large amounts of our lives poured onto the web. Look at history and tell me all of the things that at one time we believed were fine and good, but now see as wrong and corrupt.
Steve Woodruff @swoodruff
· 10 months ago
The simple fact is, we make a choice to open up a lot of elements of our lives by being involved in these networks. Let's make conscious choices and not have unrealistic expectations. As long as companies are transparent about what's going on, and we choose to be transparent with your lives, then we maintain some level of social contract sanity in this big community experiment we're conducting.
Diane Coville
· 10 months ago
I have to admit, I don't always "take the time" to read the agreements. Tsk tsk. When I was reading your post, the first thing I thought of was collaborative sites like Bootcamp, Central Desktop, ClientSpot, etc. We virtual assistants use these sites frequently to manage our clients' workloads and, as well, share with team members. If we upload our clients' work to these servers does that mean those documents are also fair game to be accessed and shared by the program providers? Wow! What does that do to our client confidentiality and privacy codes?
Sue Densmore
· 10 months ago
I get that they have rights to your content. But I am with Max - that should last only as long as you use the service. The compromise is necessary in order for them to run properly, and I can understand and agree to that. But if I were to decide to leave the service, then they should truly delete all my content. I stop, they stop. Simple.
Debra
· 10 months ago
Thanks for the clarity on this, Chris. By nature I'm not a paranoid person...of course many would say I never take my rose-colored glasses off! (I think that's a good thing) So...I choose "non-issue" in this case and I appreciate your wisdom in helping to make that a clear, comfortable choice. Keeping my head out of the proverbial sand is another choice I choose to make so being informed in this way is great. :0)
Eric_Hoffman
· 10 months ago
It is the social web after all and, if anything, this should just emphasize to everyone that "what you do online, stays online!" That said, sure sounds like Facebook is trying to move forward strategically with FacebookConnect now...interesting to see how much adoption they get.
Nichole (@napril1023)
· 10 months ago
As a rule, I only post items and information that I don't mind "losing" or giving up the rights - making this a non-issue for me. This includes the photos, notes, videos, etc. that I add to Facebook, the documents I add to Google Docs, and any other service that I subscribe to.
AnotherGuy
· 10 months ago
@ James Poulter I think it's more like Facebook shares copyright with you, not that they own all of it. Means that they can do what they want with it without permission, at the same time that you do what you want without their permission.
Samer Forzley
· 10 months ago
On the issue of privacy. The question is, do you and must you share information for ever? And should you share more that what is required to render the service. I dont believe you should.
I wonder if those terms will stand up in Europe or Canada? actually i think those terms are quite illegal and can be challenged in Canada under PIPEDA which is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_0...
I dont not think there is such thing as this data is longer my personal information. Its always your personal information and the company has to remove them.
Personally I cant stand facebook, I much rather use twitter, i did a blog post on facebook vs twitter http://samerforzley.com/2008/11/19/facebook-vs-... and if Burger King wants to give me a whopper to kill the account, then that may just be enough incentive to do it :)
Sharoney
· 10 months ago
It's the "we can transfer your content to third parties" clause that pisses me off. I don't know about you guys, but I don't want Facebook selling my posted baby pictures to Gerber. Or seeing my silly high-school photos used in a Pepsi ad because FB decided that was the best way to "monentize" their site.
And yes, they should have given all the users an up-front notice and an opt-out period.
Greg Cryns
· 10 months ago
Serious food for thought, Chris.
I've never given this a second thought, in fact. But maybe I should?
I agree with Max above that it would be difficult for FB to challenge a lawsuit after they slipped it in like Congress people often do on Bills to sneak in some icky stuff.
But who has the muscle to challenge them? This is the same old story. The 800 pound gorilla KNOWS how big it is and uses his weight to sit on and flatten its opponents.
Thus, I would say use the service but, if you are concerned about the TOS or if you have tons of money to defend or attack them (yea, right, that's going to happen) then just don't post anything that you may want to use in the future that would benefit you in some way.
Jim Mitchem
· 10 months ago
You might not have total control over your intellectual property online, but the fact is - what you write, draw, take pictures of, paint, or say - IS your property. That's not me, that's the copyright law of 1977 which states:
Under section 102 of the Act, copyright protection extends to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." The Act defines "works of authorship" as any of the following:
1. literary works, 2. musical works, including any accompanying words, 3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music, 4. pantomimes and choreographic works, 5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works, 6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works, and 7. sound recordings.[2]
So the FB TOS is either 1) erroneous (whether on their part in writing it, or our part in interpreting it) or 2) illegal.
How sad to think that if I took a picture of my daughter, and there's a rainbow behind her, and because I posted it to facebook - they can sell this image to Corbis (for ex.) who will capitalize off of it. The fact that they even write this kind of dialogue into the TOS is in itself illegal. Or at least unethical.
David Petherick
· 10 months ago
The difference here is that I had no 'get out now' option.
Most TOS state that they can change without notice - but give you the option to not agree to those changes, and remove your consent / content. Facebook seems to be saying you can't amend things even after you remove yourself from their service - they will use your stuff any way they want.
I am happy to share my stuff, but I pay a good deal of attention to the terms and conditions under which it is shared. I do not want to allow material to be used by Facebook in ways I did not agree to at the time I shared that material.
I want my consent on content to be my consent, not a set of goalposts that can be moved unilaterally after I have given one type of consent. The right to withdraw consent has been removed. So I have begun to withdraw my content from Facebook - and they are going to have a real uphill struggle to get my consent in the future.
Matt Borondy
· 10 months ago
Good points. I haven't read the new FB TOS, but I don't see Facebook maliciously selling out its customers to make a quick buck. That's not exactly the way to grow a social-media business, and I'm pretty sure they know that.
People seem to be interpreting this to say that if George Lucas posts Star Wars to Facebook then Facebook somehow owns all the rights to Star Wars. I'm no lawyer, but that seems like a tough case to win.
Terri
· 10 months ago
Cloud computing is risky. Sounds like a great idea, saves companies money, but at the end of the day where is your content? If Facebook, Google apps or whatever interactive site you choose closes their doors, you lose your posted content. How secure is the site, their storage, etc? Do your risk analysis first, then use the right technology for the job. My recipes online in the cloud? No problem. My companies system documentation? No way. Project team collaboration? Depends on the risk analysis data :)
Glenda Myles
· 10 months ago
Question is, although it freaks me out a little, does/will it change my behaviour? Probably not. I hope that most companies are ethical to at least some extent to how they choose to protect and use our information. At the end of the day, the benefits seem to outweigh the potential risk at least for me. And I guess I can't leave anyways even if I wanted to. :) It will be interesting to watch how this plays out if at all over the coming few days. I definitely agree, that at the least if I choose to cancel my membership I should take all data with me.
Ken Heutmaker
· 10 months ago
This is really a non-issue because of the level of control FB gives you on how your content is shared. If you set all of your content and your profile to the most restrictive "private" setting, they can't do anything with it, other than show it to you.
I think that Max Kennerly's test case would have to include, "I set all of my data to 'private' and you (FB) shared it anyway".
I suspect that the change in TOS is really just a matter of practicality for FB. They really don't care about keeping your data, but it's difficult for them to extract one user's data from their system, so they don't even try.
Taco John
· 10 months ago
I had a law professor who is on the cutting edge of this stuff regarding online content, privacy policies, terms of service, etc., not to mention virtual property.
His take: all of these agreements are essentially unenforceable. A company can change their TOS, violate their privacy policy, cut you off for no reason, and there's not a whole lot we can do about.
I think if you're not comfortable with that, maybe the internet isn't the best place for you.
BobGoyetche
· 10 months ago
I reread them , thinking I already knew what I was giving up..
I didn't like this part:
"User Content" means any photos, text, link, audio, video, designs, ads and anything else that you Post on or through the Facebook Service. "Post" means to upload, post, transmit, share, store, link to or otherwise make available on or through the Facebook Service."
so, you link to your site/import your RSS/flickr/ whatever? FB can do what they want.. Enforceable? Probably not, but that doesn't make them less evil..
knightopia
· 10 months ago
"They own your content. ... The only way it’s ever otherwise is if the terms say so."
Yes, so let's CHANGE what the Terms of Service say back to what they were!
I wonder about the "privacy" thing. You can change your privacy setting at any time, but when do they take effect, and can they take effect retroactively on content that has already been used, copied, published, streamed, stored, retained, publicly performed or displayed, transmitted, scanned, reformatted, modified, edited, framed, translated, excerpted, adapted, or distributed (through multiple tiers)?
Jeremiah Staes
· 10 months ago
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want control, pay for it.
We (as in the general internet user) have shown that we do not want to pay for these services directly. We also don't want to pay for them through clicking ads, as social networks have, by many reports, very low click-through rates.
So the bills have to be paid somehow, investors expect their returns, and this is how, through the use of your data. Facebook, through Beacon and other attempts, have shown their cards that THAT is their ace-in-the-hole they intend to use for monetization.
I often wonder if the ultimate in social networking platforms is not as a business, but as a non-profit. After all, that's what we (royal "we") seem to expect from social networking sites and it's been shown so far to be difficult to build a sustainable business off of that.
I don't blame these companies for trying to make a dollar; just realize the bargain you're willingly getting into when you're using them. The internet culture of "free" has to make a buck somewhere.
Douglas Cootey
· 10 months ago
FB changed their TOS over a year or two ago to own all our content, but we continued using it even though the new TOS had a lot of people upset. It was the price to pay for connectivity. This time seems different, though. Now they changed the TOS on the sly and opted us all in, even if we removed our content.
Since we have already made a deal with the devil before, now we have to rethink our dealings going forward.
Today I'm changing my account so that my blog RSS feeds no longer dump into my FB wall. I have no idea how much content FB culls from my feed, or how much they'll lay claim to when they do. Most of my content is released under the creative commons, but FB's new TOS seems to indicate they can monetize my content. Not what I want. From now on I'll have to just manually point links to my new blog posts with summaries.
Am I over reacting or being careful? What are you going to do?
Douglas @SplinteredMind I crossposted this to Facebook
Amanda Bendrey
· 10 months ago
What is upsetting for a 20 something is Facebook has radically evolved since we began using it. My freshman year of college, Facebook was a world you couldn't even enter without a college email address. So what worries me is that without notification, FB announced that it can forever use all my information that I posted without any idea that my profile would eventually turn into a space that I used not just for goofing off with friends, but for connecting with professionals.
Now, a few months away from graduation at Michigan State University, I am continuously hearing about students that lost out on job opportunities, and even in extreme cases have had offers revoked, because Facebook sold their pictures and information (even when it was set to private) to the companies they were interviewing with.
I have long ago removed my old pictures and FB content that wasn't family/professional friendly. However, FB could still damage my professional career and reputation by selling content that I consciously chose to remove for that very reason. Many people would say you should have known better, but really, even the tech savy Gen Y did not see the massive platform FB would grow to be; at least I didn't! And I certainly didn't think my fellow MSU classmates would be losing job opportunities over a FB picture of them doing a shot at the bar.
I truly believe that the FB clause should be modified, and that users with accounts that were created before the clause was added should be permitted to permanently remove any information that was added before said date.
Matt Borondy
· 10 months ago
People keep saying they're going to stop posting their feeds and writing to Facebook, but that doesn't stop someone else from posting your content on Facebook, does it? If you're interpreting this as, "Facebook owns all content posted to Facebook," then someone could post your feed or writing on his/her profile and then Facebook would still theoretically own it. The point is, any time you post something online, you inherently lose some control of it.
Mirco
· 10 months ago
My last call on the old TOS was, that they keep your data anyway, but only remove it from being accessable through the website.
So I don't see any real change here
Book Calendar
· 10 months ago
I am glad that I left Facebook some time ago. I found their system to have too much spam and irrelevant applications floating around. I also found them to be too restrictive. I could not join Facebook as Jack Kerouac. They tried to insist that I be a real person. So, I chose to be Charles Dickens for a while. Even then it was obvious that they were very much trying to sell me a variety of different products. In addition to the asking for lots of products, they constantly asked me to donate for different causes. It seemed that they might have been collecting my information for nonprofit prospect research.
This is the kind of action that attracts groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU. It could lead to some very interesting followup. Also, because Facebook is used by many professionals, it could attract some interesting reactions from the publishing community.
I left Facebook a while ago before the Terms of Service were changed. However, when I left I noticed that Facebook had it set up so that your account could be reactivated at anytime by you. The information was not cleaned out.
Danny Brown
· 10 months ago
Personally I think Facebook have dropped a massive ball here. Their claim that they own whatever you upload even after you leave has to be questionable. As a few people on here have already said, there's IP rights to take into account as well as the legality of that statement alone.
If Facebook thought they were losing members to other services before, I wonder how many they'll have to worry about jumping ship now? They're becoming as relevant as MySpace...
Douglas Cootey
· 10 months ago
Matt wrote: "People keep saying they’re going to stop posting their feeds and writing to Facebook, but that doesn’t stop someone else from posting your content on Facebook, does it? If you’re interpreting this as, “Facebook owns all content posted to Facebook,” then someone could post your feed or writing on his/her profile and then Facebook would still theoretically own it. The point is, any time you post something online, you inherently lose some control of it."
I was trying so hard not to be paranoid, but yes, this occurred to me too. In such a case you'd obviously have the courts on your side, though you'd have the expensive prospect of proving it. Facebook would be pulling out this TOS to give them protection from such cases.
In fact, this Facebook stance isn't legally defensible, IMO. I can't, for instance, claim that I hereby own all content on this site if Chris Brogan agrees to these terms by simply reading them. Whoops! Too late.
The problem is 1) we have to wait for a copyright infringement and 2) we have to prove it was an infringement. Facebook is obviously trying to cover their legal fannies with a very broad hat. The question is if you want to count on them playing nice in the future. We have no control over what others do with our content once we share it.
Douglas @SplinteredMind
Douglas Cootey
· 10 months ago
Mirco,
Then why the new TOS if it's the same? No, they're staking out new rights by taking away some of ours. The question is if this is OK with you. For some, it is not.
Douglas @SplinteredMInd
Anja Merret
· 10 months ago
We are going to have to learn to be less trusting with our personal information. Even if FB were to just store our info without possibly using it, there are hackers out there that can access most data. There have been some dramatic cases in the UK recently. A smidgen of paranoia is called for.
Judy Rey Wasserman
· 10 months ago
Chris, thanks for opening this forum with your article. This is the first time I don't fully agree with everything you say. Facebook's TOS move greatly concerns me as an artist. I understand that FB can use my images to promote themselves. But owning them inperpetuity, even if I remove them or leave the service is another thing. It raises many legal questions, such as who actually owns the right to reproduce my work for sale? I not only sell my paintings but also reproductive prints. Can FB now make prints of my work? In perpetuity -- including the future-- does more that protect Facebook -- it asserts a legal claim to full copyright ownership. It greatly worries me. It should worry all visual artists, video artists, writers, etc. Yesterday, I was mentored by someone who is very active on Facebook. I was preparing to have my own FB fan page and start a group about the new art theory that I am founding, Post Conceptual UnGraven Image, plus the new transformin e book that has grwon out of that. Today, I have pulled back on all of those plans fotr more presence on Facebook. Like some of the comments above, I would like to see a lawsuit that questions these TOS terms. Judy Rey Wasserman On Twitter: http://twitter.com/judyrey
Jason Finch
· 10 months ago
I think this misses the point: most people do not understand complex Terms of Service and have trust and faith that services will act with integrity. They have that trust that their banks and doctors will not sell their data or attempt to create profit from the private information they've freely given to those services. Facebook changes that.
You know social media, Chris, you live it, you breathe it, you understand it - many many millions of people in the world do not: they get sucked into these services, devote huge resources, energy and time to them, but they are not educated into understanding the implications of what they are doing and what they are releasing.
It's cool to say "Oh get a grip, people, this happens everywhere" but perhaps it would be cooler for some kind of 'uprising' and for someone to champion the education of the common bod-in-the-street to arm people with the information they need to understand what they are doing and what they are giving up when they give their content to such services as Facebook and, yes, Google and every other website too.
Maisa
· 10 months ago
Hey Chris!
Good input about this FB situation. What I really think - and you quite mentioned in here, is that like in any other kind of agreement, you've already read and signed upon something that you agree with. If that's to change at any point, you just don't assume that people will automatically keep the same opinion about it.
And to me it's clear that one of the reasons that they might have done it this way, it's exactly because if they were to send out a message: "Hey, we've changed our terms, read it again and make sure you are still ok with it", probably that would mostly have a bigger impact from users than it's happening now.
With that said, I still think it's nothing but ethic having your users informed about a change and ASKED if they are still comfortable with it in order to keep using the service, which probably would get a much better result.
If anything, users would've at least felt like they are still the ones choosing whether or not they are comfortable with where and how they expose their content online.
In times of Twitter, what could Facebook could possibly expect as a reaction? Seriously?
frank
· 10 months ago
I really don't care to be honest.
Maybe that's a bad way of seeing this, but i don't post content to FB that i'd be afraid of them using in some other way. i also don't think my content is that exciting :)
I also don't think FB is stupid. they want to be a successful company that sticks around for a long time. if they screw this up their life span will take a huge dip.
I think this is a good read for parents with kids using the internet! As a business owner, I hope they do spread my stuff like some creamy Jiff, hoping some of it sticks to the roof of someone’s <strike>mouth<strike> mouse.
marshal sandler
· 10 months ago
Let's get serious I hope what I put on Facebook makes them Money cause I look at their advertising and they need help ! I don't think anything posted on Facebook is earth shattering , I have posted articles that I have reblogged from my favorite bloggers on Face Book a lot I use Woopra and Google Anylitics . I get hits from Twitter Krumlr my Tumblr page never a hit from face book this means probably no one reads my page therefore I am safe from the demons ! Facbook I feel is about as boring as Friendfeed. And Facebook is not social media it is just like text messaging a tool for a few folks not really a universal way to spread the word-facebook is like the Congress and Senate to many Attorneys-
regina
· 10 months ago
thanks chris....needed the clarification.
Ryan Miller
· 10 months ago
In regards to debate as to whether this is a big deal or not, I wonder if we've just found a business model for Facebook: That is, the freemium model.
Maybe you can have a free Facebook account, but of course you agree to their TOS, and Facebook 'owns' all your information for use with distribution of ads, content, etc, and they have the right to take it down or keep it, at their discretion.
OR, allowed 'paid' Facebook accounts, where for a monthly / yearly fee, you get more privacy rights and the ability to 'own' how your content is stored, shared, and saved. Additionally, you would be able to delete your profile and all that went with it upon your account terminating.
Any thoughts or am I just talkin' crazy?
andrew baron
· 10 months ago
Chris, you are WAY wrong about this. Consider my perspective with Rocketboom:
When I upload a video to YT, they can do whatever they want, but if I decide to take it down, from that point fwd, YT cant do anything with my videos anymore.
What if in 30 years from now, people look back at Rocketboom to visually track some of the day-to-day trends of the internet and it becomes in demand suddenly for nostalgic reasons; If I want to try and use that content to do business, Facebook could put the content out for free or modify it and include it with other packages, or do whatever the want to compete with me and undercut my sales because they will own the right to forever do whatever they want.
For Christ’s sake Chris, this is very serious. Do you think I would sign a document that I send into the copyright office for my work that includes my name as well as Facebook on every sheet? You think Disney is going to put one of their videos on Facebook without a special contract?
Why should I give away my content to Facebook? They might sell to Disney, and then Disney would have the right to do what ever they want, even after I close down my account.
Please read some more. Here are some links to consider:
I pretty much agree with this, we were already giving them our content. It would have been nice of them to give people an out before they changed their terms of service. I'd also like some kind of assurance from FB that this does not mean they'll knowingly use private photos, etc, for promotion. Anybody seen anything like that?
Mary Hodder
· 10 months ago
Chris, Facebook gets a "non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license" to your content. They don't own it, nor can they prevent you from using it because you give them this license.
The change is it's not revokable because you take yourself or some item you posted out of Facebook.
Facebook has been using everything they have on us at FB to match us everywhere else online for years. If you use the same email address at FB as you use at Myspace, or in your blog, or at twitter, or flickr, or anywhere else they can get a data match, or pay a service like Rapleaf to do it, they will and will use all the matches.
You agree to give them the license, sublicense the data, and match and use that data for anything. And now it's not revokable because you delete it, at least according to their terms of use.
These are important distinctions. You still own your stuff, you just give them a fully loaded license to effectively co-own.
mary
Debra Gould, The Staging Diva
· 10 months ago
Thanks Chris for this viewpoint on what the change of terms means and agree that a warning to opt out before changing terms would have been the right thing to do. Guess they were trying to avoid an exodus from their service.
Debra Gould, The Staging Diva
andrew baron
· 10 months ago
People! The big point here is that Facebook does not need to own it perpetually. Most other platforms will stop use given a reasonable enough time for them to take it down from being publicly available.
It's not needed to operate, its just needed to be greedy. A take-away from people who don't understand what they are doing. Think about how much this increases the assets of the company! One in five people who visited the internet last month, visited Facebook. People are sharing twice as much this year, as they did last year. Facebook *owns* all the media and everything these people are coming to obtain. You do the math. You relinquish your data to the market-pool forever more, but it's the only place where it happens and it doesn't need to be this way.
Facebook has the option to remove the "perpetual" part of this term, just like YouTube, Vimeo, iTunes, Flickr, etc. did.
Michael Murray
· 10 months ago
Chris,
This has been coming for sometime. Hopefully many webseries creators and general media makers to think twice. There may be some legal difficulties in store for the future for those that are eventually acquired. Best case is to truly utilize Facebook as an outpost rather then a media marketplace.
Reggie Greene / The Logisticia
· 10 months ago
Good stuff Chris. Saw that my friend Iris of "Mutton Chops" had a link to you and consequently had to pay a visit. These vehicles are revolutionary, and because they are relatively new, the dust has not quite settled, nor the shake-out been completed. I worked in the patent and intellectual property field, and put together relationships with the Los Angeles Venture Association just before the tech bubble burst, during the last few years of my legal career. There are lots of changes yet to come. We all need to keep our heads up.
High Desert Hooker
· 10 months ago
Thanks for the 'fo, Chris. Or the 411 - are the kids still saying that?
I realize that not much has changed, but now I am aware of what I'm giving away when I add my blog to Facebook. Also, I hate those 3rd party apps, with the exception of the button thing because heck, you've got to admit that most of them are funny, and I've been looking for an excuse to block even more of them. Rock on!
@freewinetasting
· 10 months ago
The problem I see is that if FB owns everything you post, they could then sell it. I could see major corporations purchasing content from FB so that they can conduct searches going back years on prospective employers.
Do you want to be judged by your actions when you were 16?
What if you had political conversations on FB?
What if you are a totally changed person because you got sober or had a life changing experience? But on FB, for years, you came across as someone totally different?
It's one thing to be judge by what you've done professionally during your career. It is another thing entirely to be judged by your social career.
Parents - you need to explain this to your kids. You're little hell raising 16 year old who is barely getting C's might straighten up in college and want to work toward a very serious, successful career. Will his antics on FB hold him/her back?
Average every day people will be up against the same background checks as politicians!
Who wants that?
Andre Natta
· 10 months ago
The main point brought up in Chris' post was that we don't necessarily read the Terms of Service when we're signing up for any of these social networks or cloud computing solutions.
We provide the right to people to reuse our data every time we write something on line. Some choose to respect that right and use it the right way via RSS feeds, trackbacks and the like; others don't. I'd rather have someone be up front about it now than find out later that it was not what I thought it would be.
Perhaps the bigger issue is the fact that Facebook isn't necessarily compelled to share changes with us, especially if we're not forced to sign in every time we access the website. I doubt that the uproar would be any quieter if they had provided a link on our login page or our homepage and made sure that we knew this was going to happen, but since we seem to expect that the online world is one of courtesy, it wouldn't have hurt to keep this from becoming as big of an issue as it appears to have morphed into.
cherylsmith
· 10 months ago
You're right Chris. This isn't new - only the "forever" part. It's amazing how many people are unaware of what they're signing up for, and especially the number of completely unaware parents whose teens are on FB.
I wonder if FB will somehow see the backlash from folks and offer a "get out now" option as you suggest. Doubtful, but good suggestion, nonetheless. Thanks for posting about this.
Rebecca
· 10 months ago
I agree. I saw your tweet about this earlier and there is no expectation of privacy in the sense of owning your data. This doesn't personally scare me, but I can see how others would be troubled, and if I'm letting my imagination go, how it could be troublesome. But I believe in the goodness of people and the power of community to ensure information is used in the best way possible.
Greg B
· 10 months ago
Chris, Excellent take. I appreciate that you dispensed with all the emotional ranting I am seeing elsewhere and presented a reasonable argument as to why this is not the end of the world.
As I said on my blog, this is really a non-issue in my opinion. Thanks for spelling it out.
Dan York
· 10 months ago
Chris,
Thanks for putting up this piece. You're right, the Facebook ToS has been with us all along. I wrote about this (ironically started by some comments from you) back in July 2007 at:
The key difference now with the change in the Facebook ToS is that the perpetual license you grant Facebook outlives your relationship with Facebook. If you remove your content from Facebook, it doesn't matter... Facebook still has a license to do whatever it wants with that content.
I'll admit that I guess I sort of thought of it that way all along, and so I've made a practice of not adding into Facebook anything that I don't want Facebook to have in perpetuity. But I have done so consciously aware of the FB Terms of Service. I think part of the uproar in the blogosphere is that many people are only now reading the actual ToS and realize that all their content now belongs to Facebook.
As other commenters have noted, it's easy to dismiss these ToS docs when we shine up for whatever the latest bright shiny social service is, but it's really critical to actually read them and understand what rights are being given away.
If you choose (as I do) to still upload content into Facebook, do understand what rights you are giving away.
P.S. In his comment above, Andrew Baron does make an excellent point related to the potential future monetization of your content and how Facebook, with its copies, could potentially impact your own business goals. Definitely worth considering.
Dan York
· 10 months ago
Oops... obviously meant to say when we "sign" up for services and in the paragraph above that I meant to use "realizing" versus "realize".
Max Kennerly
· 10 months ago
I've posed a followup on my blog to the law of stealth contract changes, linked here via my name. Short story is: companies (particularly in California) can't unilaterally change contracts without notice, which Facebook implicitly recognizes with other changes in the new Terms, particularly a change to their Term modification policy.
That is to say: if you want to jump ship now, Facebook's new Terms likely don't apply to your content, but if you keep using it, they'll apply to you at some point in the future.
Ed Rovera
· 10 months ago
Banks own your records. Your health insurance company owns your records.
Agreed, they own the records but the bank does not own my money and the health insurance company does not own my health. This comparison is completely inaccurate, You are closer to the mark when you say that FB's TOS are akin to those of Google Documents, DocStoc, and other such on-line services. I think the difference is in that the user still holds the right to delete the content from the other services without fear of it remaining in the control of the service. And, yes, I know Google holds on to everything for its marketing analysis but Google does not claim to hold the copyright to content you put on its servers.
For me personally, the TOS change is a non-problem because I don't put any content up on FB that is of any monetary value, but what about the artist who posts an original song on their FB page? Even after they take it down and close their FB account, FB could claim rights to that song. If this is not the case, FB needs to make that clear because I think the wording of their current TOS implies that they can.
Adam Singer
· 10 months ago
And that's why you should blog more than you use social media. Then you own it. Thank you, drive through - been saying this for years.
Greg B
· 10 months ago
Adam is right.
Bottom line, and I think Chris' point, is that we need to be aware of what we are agreeing to in the terms of service, and then use that knowledge to make an educated decision on whether or not you want to upload your copyrighted material to that site.
If the terms of service change, which can happen anytime, you need to reevaluate.
Thursday Bram
· 10 months ago
I'm not sure that I would agree that this is a justification for blogging rather using social networking — instead, I'm considering it more a reminder that we need to take time to consider just where we're putting out content.
It's not just an issue of remembering not to post photos of ourselves doing something particularly idiotic to Facebook — it's a question of taking into consideration how any information is going to be used before we start spreading it across the web. It's not a bad thing to share content or information: it just a decision we actually need to consider before we make it.
mayhemstudios
· 10 months ago
Is the TOS talking about copyrighted works also? Many designers, myself included have their work on Facebook for display. Does that mean they own the rights to my work and designs? Most people already had their work up before this new TOS was put in place before.
Scott Dodds
· 10 months ago
While I generally agree with the "user beware" concept when it comes to using free online services, these new ToS from Facebook go much farther than necessary. If you read the terms of Google, they explicitly do not say they have license to use your content in any way they see fit. The Google ToS are here: http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS?hl=en
The relevant section is (emphasis added): "11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence (sic) to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence (sic) is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services."
Contrast that to Facebook's ToS which claims those rights "for any purpose, including commercial or advertising"
There's protection, and there's overkill. This is the latter.
Jeff Korhan
· 10 months ago
You can't have it both ways. We want our message to be viral, yet we want to own it too. Sorry folks, it doesn't work that way. If you want to own your content, get a website that nobody will read. If you want to communicate - let it go!
Tumblemoose
· 10 months ago
OK, this is me backing out of panic mode.
Thanks for being the voice of reason.
George
Douglas Cootey
· 10 months ago
Andrew, While I agree with almost all of your points, and truly stand on your side of this issue, I need to correct you on one aspect. Facebook is claiming a global license over your content, not ownership. In real life, this will not amount to much of a distinction, but it is an important one. You still own your content, but by using FB you give them the rights to use your content cart blanche forever.
I believe this makes the TOS more insidious. By granting themselves such a wide license they can enjoy the benefits of ownership of your content without the messy legal ramifications of claiming ownership of your content. They can have the best of both worlds: using your IP when it suits them and disowning it when it does not.
Douglas Cootey
· 10 months ago
There's a lot of panic out there. A lot of anger. Stepping outside of the storm for a bit, what's a creative to do? I've still been thinking about this as I start my day.
You want to build a brand using socnets. You want to spread the word about your books. You need to write about your content in order to get people interested. FB doesn't own your content; they just maintain a license to use it as they see fit. Putting aside their ham-fisted and discourteous implementation, does anything really change here?
The debate seems to boil down to two sides: those that trust FB and those that don't. The ones that trust, see this as business as usual and the price one pays to get larger exposure for their blog, service, IP, etc. The ones that don't trust FB generally see this as a creepily ominous powergrab to lay claim on their content without their consent. They are troubled by a TOS that can change on a whim. What if FB decides to own your content over another weekend in the future? What if they assume you agree to this by the fact you logged in to see what yours peers were up to? Paranoid delusions? Are you sure?
Personally, I have decided to continue using FB for the moment, but to severely reconsider the amount of information I post there. I release my blog content under a Creative Commons license anyway, preventing only altering and monetization of my content, so giving FB a license to use my content is fine as long as they give attribution. I probably will keep pictures I post only of public events going forward, however. FB can do what they like with my status reports. I'm thinking of a spicy one to post for them right now.
Sandra Lee Schubert
· 10 months ago
I don't know where to begin. It seems people belong to better and ethical services then I do. Google seems to feel they own my content. When I was on Ustream yesterday and we mentioned taxes in the chat room within seconds a tax ad showed up. Whoa who is listening in the chat and what happens to that info? When I decided to use my name instead a "user name" I did a search first to see what showed up. There was info out there from mentions in a company newsletter, church sites, friends blogs, photos and companies that had access to my home address etc. As a rule I keep a PO Box, a generic phone number for all public content. I do google alerts and discover my articles from years ago show up in the oddest places. While I agree FB could have been a little more upfront about this I do think the outcry will have them change their minds. I saw FB mentioned on three shows this morning. in a two hour period. I continue to write everything on my computer first and then post online. But when my articles end up being mentioned in a newspaper in another content then I am happy for the exposure.
Rachel Burkot
· 10 months ago
Personally, I don't see the big deal about the internet owning your content once you submit it to them. I think it's kind of obvious that when you put it on THEIR site, they're going to own it. My question is how this meshes with copyright laws. In America, once you write something, it is copyrighted as yours. Does this not apply to social networking sites? Or is it only yours until you surrender it to a grander realm (AKA the internet)?
Nicholas Chase
· 10 months ago
Chris,
The "value" of my content on Facebook is nil. The contacts I have made there are the "precious jewels" of the paradigm. When I first share with others, the benefits are long-lasting and repeatable.
I have other ways to contact my 'Facebook friends', and the content on my blogs stays on my blogs. Facebook should be commended for revealing this policy-shift, and rather than be alarmed by the information I am consoled by the fact that nothing has really changed for me with this TOS clarification.
If the purpose of Facebook is to 'get something' from someone else, why not offer something of value first? By giving away from myself, I have always seen the inverse occur, I usually receive something of far greater value over time.
Great post, Chris! I'm amazed there is so much negativity floating around this topic. You are spot on about how people don't pay attention to what they sign up for. But like anything else, they can choose not to use these services. I for one embrace them. The positive far outweighs the negative for me.
@madalynsklar
suzi w.
· 10 months ago
The way I explained it to a friend on Twitter: If you send a picture to Lily, and you leave FB, the picture you sent to Lily still stays with her. If you keep everything private, FB has no jurisdiction to share it, whether you stay or leave. I thought Mark Z.'s blog at the end of the day was lucid in explaining why the TOS wording was not so lucid. The sky is NOT falling.
xo, Suzi
Iluska Ikeda
· 10 months ago
It's true that we are giving up a lot of information everywhre on the web, but the idea of the content not dying after we leave, that's what spooked me. I've been reflecting on this, and no content ever dies completely. People download it and individually redistribute it. In a space like Facebook, you don't know how many people you've given access to content who will keep it for their own purposes. So in a way, even with the old TOS (which are now back) your content doesn't die when you leave. Still, for the site to do it in a systematic fashion, and make it a condition to participate goes one step further. Probably, that's the way that things will go eventually. We have to think of the web now as the place where we self-publish and that includes any kind of content. So if you put it up, you will have to be aware it's there for good. We have to do a better job of self-editing what we publish.
MLDina
· 10 months ago
It's a scary thought, but it's true. You have to be careful what kind of personal information you give out on the web, or anywhere, for that matter. I'm reminded every time I have to check one of those boxes with the tiny, tiny text, or with a guidebook, map, and compass to get you through the terms page.
Dee Hausker
· 10 months ago
I think that Facebook didn't take into consideration language. What they posted and what their intent was not cohesive. Unfortunately for how Facebook sees privacy issues if someone closes their account and their cotent stays on someone elses page....
rivercity
· 10 months ago
Social networking sites are like banks. They create value only if people create content or deposit money (in case of banks). If the service provider sabotages customers’ trust, I don’t see a sustainable future for that particular business. Just posted my views on this episode here: Facebook, Sixth most populous kingdom on earth
coffee
· 10 months ago
Sadly, most people would not have looked closely enough to notice the change in Facebook's Terms of Service... looks them social networkers are doing a good job of looking out for each other
MickG
· 9 months ago
Great Post Chris. I'm a bit of a Facebook Heretic. Not REALLY my cuppa tea. As my blog post - Facebook Friends Forever describes ......
"I pretty much hate Facebook. I find it a pretty impersonal and voyeuristic way to communicate. After years though of ignoring it - I finally spent a few days playing with it - and had these 7 thoughts.
1. I'm astounded how my circle of friends from diverse backgrounds/ starting points have cross-pollinated. Friends from school are now friends with fellow student friends from Uni. And vice-versa! Perhaps it's just the common starting point of all living together in one place for a period of time. The old Hometown Factor.
2. There is an incredible amount of flippant / surface banter - without a huge amount of real communication.
3. The photos people post are normally pretty arbitary. And sometimes just weird. Most without labels - so it's difficult to understand their context or background.
4. I'm nervous as hell about what I write to others - knowing that each and every mutual 'friend' visiting the page thereafter can read it. Sort of like a massive global school-yard - where everyone knows everything. And therefore no-one says anything - but everyone still knows! .....
All Comments
I agree that we all need to be more aware of the implications of using free Web services. But, at the same time, we are not impotent to affect change on Facebook regarding the Terms of Service. I've created a Facebook group to try to mobilize reaction and call on Facebook to change things back:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=683350579...
I hope others will join in and together our voices can be heard in the halls of Zuckerberg ;-)
Peace,
Steve K.
The old web bargain was, "we can do whatever we want with your content, if you don't like it, leave and we'll stop."
New bargain is "... if you don't like it, too bad, stay off the site, we're the 800-lbs gorilla."
They're begging for a test-suit against them -- just need one user to quit and file a declaratory judgment about rights to their content.
Moreover, they REALLY bungled the roll-out. Your credit card company mails you every single change to your terms of service -- Facebook just slipped it in. It'll be awfully hard for them to argue that existing users "consented" to that change by continuing to use the service."
@bookerx3
Also, FB isn't searchable on Google. That goes a long way toward giving you reasonable privacy. As you say, Google both own your content and make it publically available. Companies already use Google searches to vet employees, but that's part of business and doesn't worry me either. My concern? My kids. In X years, they'll be able to trace my entire online history, and believe me, it ain't all pretty. :)
It would have been nice if Facebook had let people know in advance, but I think the number of people who really care will be very small. Those who would strongly react probably aren't there in the first place.
Gen X is going to be weirded out for a few minutes, shrug their shoulders and move on. Gen Y took it as a given in the first place. The Millennials won't have any expectation of privacy at all.
Put this into a practical example for a second.
About 2 years ago I started posting the poety I write on a poetry app on facebook as well as in my notes section. Under these new terms is Facebook saying they now own the copy write to that material? If so, what happens when my book deal finally comes off? Who then owns it? Facebook, my publisher, me? Who?
Answers on a postcard - for more details see @lewiswebbs guestpost on my blog today - http://bit.ly/fgttu
Cheers
Even the posts on our blog are not our anymore. They are ideas, and once published, acquired by millions on the net. What do people have to say to that. If that is acceptable then why this hoopla over the new TOS of Facebook!
Also, the internet is still very young. We have no idea what the long term consequences are of having such large amounts of our lives poured onto the web. Look at history and tell me all of the things that at one time we believed were fine and good, but now see as wrong and corrupt.
Keeping my head out of the proverbial sand is another choice I choose to make so being informed in this way is great. :0)
I think it's more like Facebook shares copyright with you, not that they own all of it. Means that they can do what they want with it without permission, at the same time that you do what you want without their permission.
I wonder if those terms will stand up in Europe or Canada? actually i think those terms are quite illegal and can be challenged in Canada under PIPEDA which is the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. http://www.privcom.gc.ca/legislation/02_06_01_0...
I dont not think there is such thing as this data is longer my personal information. Its always your personal information and the company has to remove them.
Personally I cant stand facebook, I much rather use twitter, i did a blog post on facebook vs twitter http://samerforzley.com/2008/11/19/facebook-vs-...
and if Burger King wants to give me a whopper to kill the account, then that may just be enough incentive to do it :)
And yes, they should have given all the users an up-front notice and an opt-out period.
I've never given this a second thought, in fact. But maybe I should?
I agree with Max above that it would be difficult for FB to challenge a lawsuit after they slipped it in like Congress people often do on Bills to sneak in some icky stuff.
But who has the muscle to challenge them? This is the same old story. The 800 pound gorilla KNOWS how big it is and uses his weight to sit on and flatten its opponents.
Thus, I would say use the service but, if you are concerned about the TOS or if you have tons of money to defend or attack them (yea, right, that's going to happen) then just don't post anything that you may want to use in the future that would benefit you in some way.
Under section 102 of the Act, copyright protection extends to "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." The Act defines "works of authorship" as any of the following:
1. literary works,
2. musical works, including any accompanying words,
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music,
4. pantomimes and choreographic works,
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works, and
7. sound recordings.[2]
So the FB TOS is either 1) erroneous (whether on their part in writing it, or our part in interpreting it) or 2) illegal.
How sad to think that if I took a picture of my daughter, and there's a rainbow behind her, and because I posted it to facebook - they can sell this image to Corbis (for ex.) who will capitalize off of it. The fact that they even write this kind of dialogue into the TOS is in itself illegal. Or at least unethical.
Most TOS state that they can change without notice - but give you the option to not agree to those changes, and remove your consent / content. Facebook seems to be saying you can't amend things even after you remove yourself from their service - they will use your stuff any way they want.
I am happy to share my stuff, but I pay a good deal of attention to the terms and conditions under which it is shared. I do not want to allow material to be used by Facebook in ways I did not agree to at the time I shared that material.
I want my consent on content to be my consent, not a set of goalposts that can be moved unilaterally after I have given one type of consent. The right to withdraw consent has been removed. So I have begun to withdraw my content from Facebook - and they are going to have a real uphill struggle to get my consent in the future.
People seem to be interpreting this to say that if George Lucas posts Star Wars to Facebook then Facebook somehow owns all the rights to Star Wars. I'm no lawyer, but that seems like a tough case to win.
I think that Max Kennerly's test case would have to include, "I set all of my data to 'private' and you (FB) shared it anyway".
I suspect that the change in TOS is really just a matter of practicality for FB. They really don't care about keeping your data, but it's difficult for them to extract one user's data from their system, so they don't even try.
His take: all of these agreements are essentially unenforceable. A company can change their TOS, violate their privacy policy, cut you off for no reason, and there's not a whole lot we can do about.
I think if you're not comfortable with that, maybe the internet isn't the best place for you.
I didn't like this part:
"User Content" means any photos, text, link, audio, video, designs, ads and anything else that you Post on or through the Facebook Service. "Post" means to upload, post, transmit, share, store, link to or otherwise make available on or through the Facebook Service."
so, you link to your site/import your RSS/flickr/ whatever? FB can do what they want.. Enforceable? Probably not, but that doesn't make them less evil..
Yes, so let's CHANGE what the Terms of Service say back to what they were!
I'm fighting back through this Facebook Group (I hope you'll get on board too, Chris and encourage others to join!):
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=68335057941
We (as in the general internet user) have shown that we do not want to pay for these services directly. We also don't want to pay for them through clicking ads, as social networks have, by many reports, very low click-through rates.
So the bills have to be paid somehow, investors expect their returns, and this is how, through the use of your data. Facebook, through Beacon and other attempts, have shown their cards that THAT is their ace-in-the-hole they intend to use for monetization.
I often wonder if the ultimate in social networking platforms is not as a business, but as a non-profit. After all, that's what we (royal "we") seem to expect from social networking sites and it's been shown so far to be difficult to build a sustainable business off of that.
I don't blame these companies for trying to make a dollar; just realize the bargain you're willingly getting into when you're using them. The internet culture of "free" has to make a buck somewhere.
Since we have already made a deal with the devil before, now we have to rethink our dealings going forward.
Today I'm changing my account so that my blog RSS feeds no longer dump into my FB wall. I have no idea how much content FB culls from my feed, or how much they'll lay claim to when they do. Most of my content is released under the creative commons, but FB's new TOS seems to indicate they can monetize my content. Not what I want. From now on I'll have to just manually point links to my new blog posts with summaries.
Am I over reacting or being careful? What are you going to do?
Douglas
@SplinteredMind
I crossposted this to Facebook
Now, a few months away from graduation at Michigan State University, I am continuously hearing about students that lost out on job opportunities, and even in extreme cases have had offers revoked, because Facebook sold their pictures and information (even when it was set to private) to the companies they were interviewing with.
I have long ago removed my old pictures and FB content that wasn't family/professional friendly. However, FB could still damage my professional career and reputation by selling content that I consciously chose to remove for that very reason. Many people would say you should have known better, but really, even the tech savy Gen Y did not see the massive platform FB would grow to be; at least I didn't! And I certainly didn't think my fellow MSU classmates would be losing job opportunities over a FB picture of them doing a shot at the bar.
I truly believe that the FB clause should be modified, and that users with accounts that were created before the clause was added should be permitted to permanently remove any information that was added before said date.
So I don't see any real change here
This is the kind of action that attracts groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU. It could lead to some very interesting followup. Also, because Facebook is used by many professionals, it could attract some interesting reactions from the publishing community.
I left Facebook a while ago before the Terms of Service were changed. However, when I left I noticed that Facebook had it set up so that your account could be reactivated at anytime by you. The information was not cleaned out.
If Facebook thought they were losing members to other services before, I wonder how many they'll have to worry about jumping ship now? They're becoming as relevant as MySpace...
I was trying so hard not to be paranoid, but yes, this occurred to me too. In such a case you'd obviously have the courts on your side, though you'd have the expensive prospect of proving it. Facebook would be pulling out this TOS to give them protection from such cases.
In fact, this Facebook stance isn't legally defensible, IMO. I can't, for instance, claim that I hereby own all content on this site if Chris Brogan agrees to these terms by simply reading them. Whoops! Too late.
The problem is 1) we have to wait for a copyright infringement and 2) we have to prove it was an infringement. Facebook is obviously trying to cover their legal fannies with a very broad hat. The question is if you want to count on them playing nice in the future. We have no control over what others do with our content once we share it.
Douglas
@SplinteredMind
Then why the new TOS if it's the same? No, they're staking out new rights by taking away some of ours. The question is if this is OK with you. For some, it is not.
Douglas
@SplinteredMInd
This is the first time I don't fully agree with everything you say.
Facebook's TOS move greatly concerns me as an artist. I understand that FB can use my images to promote themselves. But owning them inperpetuity, even if I remove them or leave the service is another thing.
It raises many legal questions, such as who actually owns the right to reproduce my work for sale? I not only sell my paintings but also reproductive prints. Can FB now make prints of my work?
In perpetuity -- including the future-- does more that protect Facebook -- it asserts a legal claim to full copyright ownership. It greatly worries me. It should worry all visual artists, video artists, writers, etc.
Yesterday, I was mentored by someone who is very active on Facebook. I was preparing to have my own FB fan page and start a group about the new art theory that I am founding, Post Conceptual UnGraven Image, plus the new transformin e book that has grwon out of that.
Today, I have pulled back on all of those plans fotr more presence on Facebook.
Like some of the comments above, I would like to see a lawsuit that questions these TOS terms.
Judy Rey Wasserman
On Twitter: http://twitter.com/judyrey
You know social media, Chris, you live it, you breathe it, you understand it - many many millions of people in the world do not: they get sucked into these services, devote huge resources, energy and time to them, but they are not educated into understanding the implications of what they are doing and what they are releasing.
It's cool to say "Oh get a grip, people, this happens everywhere" but perhaps it would be cooler for some kind of 'uprising' and for someone to champion the education of the common bod-in-the-street to arm people with the information they need to understand what they are doing and what they are giving up when they give their content to such services as Facebook and, yes, Google and every other website too.
Good input about this FB situation.
What I really think - and you quite mentioned in here, is that like in any other kind of agreement, you've already read and signed upon something that you agree with. If that's to change at any point, you just don't assume that people will automatically keep the same opinion about it.
And to me it's clear that one of the reasons that they might have done it this way, it's exactly because if they were to send out a message: "Hey, we've changed our terms, read it again and make sure you are still ok with it", probably that would mostly have a bigger impact from users than it's happening now.
With that said, I still think it's nothing but ethic having your users informed about a change and ASKED if they are still comfortable with it in order to keep using the service, which probably would get a much better result.
If anything, users would've at least felt like they are still the ones choosing whether or not they are comfortable with where and how they expose their content online.
In times of Twitter, what could Facebook could possibly expect as a reaction?
Seriously?
Maybe that's a bad way of seeing this, but i don't post content to FB that i'd be afraid of them using in some other way. i also don't think my content is that exciting :)
I also don't think FB is stupid. they want to be a successful company that sticks around for a long time. if they screw this up their life span will take a huge dip.
This Mashable post has some heated debate going on:
http://mashable.com/2009/02/16/facebook-tos-pri...
--
http://twitter.com/franswaa
Maybe you can have a free Facebook account, but of course you agree to their TOS, and Facebook 'owns' all your information for use with distribution of ads, content, etc, and they have the right to take it down or keep it, at their discretion.
OR, allowed 'paid' Facebook accounts, where for a monthly / yearly fee, you get more privacy rights and the ability to 'own' how your content is stored, shared, and saved. Additionally, you would be able to delete your profile and all that went with it upon your account terminating.
Any thoughts or am I just talkin' crazy?
When I upload a video to YT, they can do whatever they want, but if I decide to take it down, from that point fwd, YT cant do anything with my videos anymore.
What if in 30 years from now, people look back at Rocketboom to visually track some of the day-to-day trends of the internet and it becomes in demand suddenly for nostalgic reasons; If I want to try and use that content to do business, Facebook could put the content out for free or modify it and include it with other packages, or do whatever the want to compete with me and undercut my sales because they will own the right to forever do whatever they want.
For Christ’s sake Chris, this is very serious. Do you think I would sign a document that I send into the copyright office for my work that includes my name as well as Facebook on every sheet? You think Disney is going to put one of their videos on Facebook without a special contract?
Why should I give away my content to Facebook? They might sell to Disney, and then Disney would have the right to do what ever they want, even after I close down my account.
Please read some more. Here are some links to consider:
Mashable:
http://mashable.com/2009/02/16/facebook-tos-pri...
Slashdot (scroll down to read comments):
http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/09/02/16/1347230.shtml
I'd also like some kind of assurance from FB that this does not mean they'll knowingly use private photos, etc, for promotion. Anybody seen anything like that?
Facebook gets a "non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license" to your content. They don't own it, nor can they prevent you from using it because you give them this license.
The change is it's not revokable because you take yourself or some item you posted out of Facebook.
Facebook has been using everything they have on us at FB to match us everywhere else online for years. If you use the same email address at FB as you use at Myspace, or in your blog, or at twitter, or flickr, or anywhere else they can get a data match, or pay a service like Rapleaf to do it, they will and will use all the matches.
You agree to give them the license, sublicense the data, and match and use that data for anything. And now it's not revokable because you delete it, at least according to their terms of use.
These are important distinctions. You still own your stuff, you just give them a fully loaded license to effectively co-own.
mary
Debra Gould, The Staging Diva
It's not needed to operate, its just needed to be greedy. A take-away from people who don't understand what they are doing. Think about how much this increases the assets of the company! One in five people who visited the internet last month, visited Facebook. People are sharing twice as much this year, as they did last year. Facebook *owns* all the media and everything these people are coming to obtain. You do the math. You relinquish your data to the market-pool forever more, but it's the only place where it happens and it doesn't need to be this way.
Facebook has the option to remove the "perpetual" part of this term, just like YouTube, Vimeo, iTunes, Flickr, etc. did.
This has been coming for sometime. Hopefully many webseries creators and general media makers to think twice. There may be some legal difficulties in store for the future for those that are eventually acquired. Best case is to truly utilize Facebook as an outpost rather then a media marketplace.
I realize that not much has changed, but now I am aware of what I'm giving away when I add my blog to Facebook. Also, I hate those 3rd party apps, with the exception of the button thing because heck, you've got to admit that most of them are funny, and I've been looking for an excuse to block even more of them. Rock on!
Do you want to be judged by your actions when you were 16?
What if you had political conversations on FB?
What if you are a totally changed person because you got sober or had a life changing experience? But on FB, for years, you came across as someone totally different?
It's one thing to be judge by what you've done professionally during your career. It is another thing entirely to be judged by your social career.
Parents - you need to explain this to your kids. You're little hell raising 16 year old who is barely getting C's might straighten up in college and want to work toward a very serious, successful career. Will his antics on FB hold him/her back?
Average every day people will be up against the same background checks as politicians!
Who wants that?
We provide the right to people to reuse our data every time we write something on line. Some choose to respect that right and use it the right way via RSS feeds, trackbacks and the like; others don't. I'd rather have someone be up front about it now than find out later that it was not what I thought it would be.
Perhaps the bigger issue is the fact that Facebook isn't necessarily compelled to share changes with us, especially if we're not forced to sign in every time we access the website. I doubt that the uproar would be any quieter if they had provided a link on our login page or our homepage and made sure that we knew this was going to happen, but since we seem to expect that the online world is one of courtesy, it wouldn't have hurt to keep this from becoming as big of an issue as it appears to have morphed into.
I wonder if FB will somehow see the backlash from folks and offer a "get out now" option as you suggest. Doubtful, but good suggestion, nonetheless. Thanks for posting about this.
Excellent take. I appreciate that you dispensed with all the emotional ranting I am seeing elsewhere and presented a reasonable argument as to why this is not the end of the world.
As I said on my blog, this is really a non-issue in my opinion. Thanks for spelling it out.
Thanks for putting up this piece. You're right, the Facebook ToS has been with us all along. I wrote about this (ironically started by some comments from you) back in July 2007 at:
http://www.disruptiveconversations.com/2007/07/...
The key difference now with the change in the Facebook ToS is that the perpetual license you grant Facebook outlives your relationship with Facebook. If you remove your content from Facebook, it doesn't matter... Facebook still has a license to do whatever it wants with that content.
I'll admit that I guess I sort of thought of it that way all along, and so I've made a practice of not adding into Facebook anything that I don't want Facebook to have in perpetuity. But I have done so consciously aware of the FB Terms of Service. I think part of the uproar in the blogosphere is that many people are only now reading the actual ToS and realize that all their content now belongs to Facebook.
As other commenters have noted, it's easy to dismiss these ToS docs when we shine up for whatever the latest bright shiny social service is, but it's really critical to actually read them and understand what rights are being given away.
If you choose (as I do) to still upload content into Facebook, do understand what rights you are giving away.
P.S. In his comment above, Andrew Baron does make an excellent point related to the potential future monetization of your content and how Facebook, with its copies, could potentially impact your own business goals. Definitely worth considering.
That is to say: if you want to jump ship now, Facebook's new Terms likely don't apply to your content, but if you keep using it, they'll apply to you at some point in the future.
Agreed, they own the records but the bank does not own my money and the health insurance company does not own my health. This comparison is completely inaccurate, You are closer to the mark when you say that FB's TOS are akin to those of Google Documents, DocStoc, and other such on-line services. I think the difference is in that the user still holds the right to delete the content from the other services without fear of it remaining in the control of the service. And, yes, I know Google holds on to everything for its marketing analysis but Google does not claim to hold the copyright to content you put on its servers.
For me personally, the TOS change is a non-problem because I don't put any content up on FB that is of any monetary value, but what about the artist who posts an original song on their FB page? Even after they take it down and close their FB account, FB could claim rights to that song. If this is not the case, FB needs to make that clear because I think the wording of their current TOS implies that they can.
Bottom line, and I think Chris' point, is that we need to be aware of what we are agreeing to in the terms of service, and then use that knowledge to make an educated decision on whether or not you want to upload your copyrighted material to that site.
If the terms of service change, which can happen anytime, you need to reevaluate.
It's not just an issue of remembering not to post photos of ourselves doing something particularly idiotic to Facebook — it's a question of taking into consideration how any information is going to be used before we start spreading it across the web. It's not a bad thing to share content or information: it just a decision we actually need to consider before we make it.
The relevant section is (emphasis added):
"11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence (sic) to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence (sic) is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services."
Contrast that to Facebook's ToS which claims those rights "for any purpose, including commercial or advertising"
There's protection, and there's overkill. This is the latter.
Thanks for being the voice of reason.
George
While I agree with almost all of your points, and truly stand on your side of this issue, I need to correct you on one aspect. Facebook is claiming a global license over your content, not ownership. In real life, this will not amount to much of a distinction, but it is an important one. You still own your content, but by using FB you give them the rights to use your content cart blanche forever.
I believe this makes the TOS more insidious. By granting themselves such a wide license they can enjoy the benefits of ownership of your content without the messy legal ramifications of claiming ownership of your content. They can have the best of both worlds: using your IP when it suits them and disowning it when it does not.
You want to build a brand using socnets. You want to spread the word about your books. You need to write about your content in order to get people interested. FB doesn't own your content; they just maintain a license to use it as they see fit. Putting aside their ham-fisted and discourteous implementation, does anything really change here?
The debate seems to boil down to two sides: those that trust FB and those that don't. The ones that trust, see this as business as usual and the price one pays to get larger exposure for their blog, service, IP, etc. The ones that don't trust FB generally see this as a creepily ominous powergrab to lay claim on their content without their consent. They are troubled by a TOS that can change on a whim. What if FB decides to own your content over another weekend in the future? What if they assume you agree to this by the fact you logged in to see what yours peers were up to? Paranoid delusions? Are you sure?
Personally, I have decided to continue using FB for the moment, but to severely reconsider the amount of information I post there. I release my blog content under a Creative Commons license anyway, preventing only altering and monetization of my content, so giving FB a license to use my content is fine as long as they give attribution. I probably will keep pictures I post only of public events going forward, however. FB can do what they like with my status reports. I'm thinking of a spicy one to post for them right now.
While I agree FB could have been a little more upfront about this I do think the outcry will have them change their minds. I saw FB mentioned on three shows this morning. in a two hour period.
I continue to write everything on my computer first and then post online. But when my articles end up being mentioned in a newspaper in another content then I am happy for the exposure.
The "value" of my content on Facebook is nil. The contacts I have made there are the "precious jewels" of the paradigm. When I first share with others, the benefits are long-lasting and repeatable.
I have other ways to contact my 'Facebook friends', and the content on my blogs stays on my blogs. Facebook should be commended for revealing this policy-shift, and rather than be alarmed by the information I am consoled by the fact that nothing has really changed for me with this TOS clarification.
If the purpose of Facebook is to 'get something' from someone else, why not offer something of value first? By giving away from myself, I have always seen the inverse occur, I usually receive something of far greater value over time.
Respectfully,
Nicholas Chase
www.twitter.com/nachase
@madalynsklar
xo,
Suzi
Unfortunately for how Facebook sees privacy issues if someone closes their account and their cotent stays on someone elses page....
As my blog post - Facebook Friends Forever describes ......
"I pretty much hate Facebook. I find it a pretty impersonal and voyeuristic way to communicate. After years though of ignoring it - I finally spent a few days playing with it - and had these 7 thoughts.
1. I'm astounded how my circle of friends from diverse backgrounds/ starting points have cross-pollinated. Friends from school are now friends with fellow student friends from Uni. And vice-versa! Perhaps it's just the common starting point of all living together in one place for a period of time. The old Hometown Factor.
2. There is an incredible amount of flippant / surface banter - without a huge amount of real communication.
3. The photos people post are normally pretty arbitary. And sometimes just weird. Most without labels - so it's difficult to understand their context or background.
4. I'm nervous as hell about what I write to others - knowing that each and every mutual 'friend' visiting the page thereafter can read it. Sort of like a massive global school-yard - where everyone knows everything. And therefore no-one says anything - but everyone still knows! .....