kev/null: Facebook Has License to Sell Your Photos
Marty Alchin
· 1 year ago
That's certainly how it sounds to me. Sure, even in the snippet you posted, there's a clause limiting to use "on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof," but that's not the only part of that clause, and even that's not very limiting: consider a coffee table "Face Book" that has the Facebook logo on the cover. That's clearly "in connection with the site," and can be sold however they please. And, while others might point out that it only says "distribute, not "sell," it also says for "commercial" purposes, which could very easily sneak its way in. Again, consider the "Face Book" where they could claim what they're selling is the cover design and bound paper, while simply "distributing" your photos along with it.
To be fair, though, a policy like this also has to stand up to the test of practicality. Sure, Facebook *can* do all of the above, but doing so would invite far more public outcry than I think they'd be willing to deal with. It's an easy way to cover themselves for legitimate purposes they have in mind, but I highly doubt they'll go so far as to sell content without user consent. While they've established in some other areas that they're willing to sacrifice some of their users' trust, I don't think they'd be so bold as to do something so many people could identify with.
After all, how many Facebook users even know what beacon is? But how many know what it means for somebody to sell their pictures without compensation? I don't think Facebook's prepared to deal with that.
Jackson West
· 1 year ago
Yeah, ever since Facebook, I've started making a habit of reading terms of service -- most share about 95 percent of their boilerplate DNA, but the devil is in the details.
I would guess a typical use would be for a "sizzle reel" type Facebook promotional bit. More worrisome would be a tie-in or co-branding with a TV show or some such (read: the sublicense part).
Barce
· 1 year ago
Kevnull, thanks for pointing this out. I'm already weary about the sketchy NDAs that most web companies make visitors and prospective employees sign. This really takes the cake.
A few years back I became aware of Facebook's policy towards user-posted photos, but still decided to post anyway. I really didn't care if Facebook wanted to use my cheap Powershot / phone photos. It would be a whole different story if I were a professional photographer--there's no chance I would let my photographs get near the site.
Sean
· 10 months ago
I did a project on MySpace a while back and found something similar in their language. It's left pretty open ended.
On a related, speculative topic, I wonder where they get the user generated video for those crappy Applebee's commercials.
my question is can they use the photos you took and others posted. I've licensed photos to artist and i wouldnt want them selling some of those photos to anyone. So just because the photographer didnt post them, doesnt mean that person they photographed DIDNT.
kevnull
· 9 months ago
That's a licensing issue. You would hve to make sure that the person posting it had license to do so. If you gave them only permission for limited use, then they shouldn't post it to FB since FB states that when you post, you certify you have the rights to them.
They all sell your shit.
· 9 months ago
Flickr does the same thing
how would you like to be a 17 year old girl who find a photo of herself she took at 14.... let me say that again.... 14. on a porn cover.
how about a 17 year old girl from the US finding virgin mobile using her photo from flickr on a billboard in Australia?
That is not at all the same thing. People just don't seem to understand copyright laws. In the cases linked in your article, Flickr had nothing to do with the selling of those images. Companies irresponsibly stole the images without permission or license. Flickr's terms are very clear — the owner maintains and controls what license to give (whether it's all reserved, creative commons or public domain).
Facebook's policy is that when you upload, you are GIVING them license so they can legally use your images for whatever they want, including resale. In the former case, someone took the photos without permission. In the latter, you actively give permission.
All Comments
To be fair, though, a policy like this also has to stand up to the test of practicality. Sure, Facebook *can* do all of the above, but doing so would invite far more public outcry than I think they'd be willing to deal with. It's an easy way to cover themselves for legitimate purposes they have in mind, but I highly doubt they'll go so far as to sell content without user consent. While they've established in some other areas that they're willing to sacrifice some of their users' trust, I don't think they'd be so bold as to do something so many people could identify with.
After all, how many Facebook users even know what beacon is? But how many know what it means for somebody to sell their pictures without compensation? I don't think Facebook's prepared to deal with that.
http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php#/video/vid...
I would guess a typical use would be for a "sizzle reel" type Facebook promotional bit. More worrisome would be a tie-in or co-branding with a TV show or some such (read: the sublicense part).
http://www.new.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php...
On a related, speculative topic, I wonder where they get the user generated video for those crappy Applebee's commercials.
Here's an example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SoJLuFt__M
Not the best crappy version, but crappy and semi-user generated all the same
how would you like to be a 17 year old girl who find a photo of herself she took at 14.... let me say that again.... 14. on a porn cover.
how about a 17 year old girl from the US finding virgin mobile using her photo from flickr on a billboard in Australia?
REAL SCENARIOS HERE PEOPLE
http://www.epuk.org/Blogs/621/the-pornographer-...
watch what you post.
That is not at all the same thing. People just don't seem to understand copyright laws. In the cases linked in your article, Flickr had nothing to do with the selling of those images. Companies irresponsibly stole the images without permission or license. Flickr's terms are very clear — the owner maintains and controls what license to give (whether it's all reserved, creative commons or public domain).
Facebook's policy is that when you upload, you are GIVING them license so they can legally use your images for whatever they want, including resale. In the former case, someone took the photos without permission. In the latter, you actively give permission.