PDA

View Full Version : Facebook's New Terms of Service



KristineS
02-16-2009, 04:24 PM
I just saw this today, and it concerns me a little.

Facebook has apparently changed their terms of service. The new policy reads as follows:


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. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses.

Sounds to me like anything you post on Facebook can be used in any way they like. I'm not fond of this as I put a link to my blog on Facebook.

Do you think I'm being too alarmist.

Here's a link to the article I found discussing the subject: Revised TOS Gives Facebook Perpetual Rights to User Content (http://www.marketingvox.com/revised-tos-gives-facebook-perpetual-rights-to-user-content-043200/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=mv&utm_medium=textlink)

cbscreative
02-16-2009, 05:13 PM
There is always a danger of abuse. As I understand those terms, it looks like they can do anything they please.

On your comment about being an alarmist, I think you should never be afraid to ask questions like that. I am reminded of people in history who were considered alarmists. Rome for example had "alarmists" who warned of impending doom. Since no one likes bad news and would rather label people as alarmists for questioning the status quo, those alarmists were ignored and their warnings unheeded. As we all know from history, Rome fell. What most people don't seem to know is that the alarmists saw it coming.

I'm not saying Facebook and Rome have anything significant in common, just making a point that it's OK to question things.

Harold Mansfield
02-16-2009, 05:24 PM
If I didn't know any better I'd say Face Book was preparing for a sale to a search engine.

vangogh
02-16-2009, 06:48 PM
I'd want to read through the TOS more, but my guess is this just means they can do anything they like with the content you post to Facebook itself. I can't see how they'd have any legal rights to republish your blog posts for example. In fact the second they do every blogger on Facebook will likely stop showing their posts there.

However I don't care for their being able to use my likeness or image for advertising.

My guess is there isn't anything to really worry about, but I agree it doesn't sound all that good and seems to indicate they can do anything they want.

vangogh
02-16-2009, 10:51 PM
Just came across more info about the new TOS at The Consumerist (http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever). There's a quote by Mark Zuckerberg as well as one by a representative of Facebook.

I get the feeling this isn't anything evil on the part of Facebook, but more a way to protect themselves. Also your privacy settings trump everything so if you set your Facebook account not to share things publicly then it won't be shared.

Oneseoasia
02-17-2009, 01:28 AM
I agree Vangogh and I don't really care. The fact facebook is good for marketing and that's it.

vangogh
02-17-2009, 01:40 AM
I can see why people would be concerned. The TOS does make it seem like Facebook is saying no matter what you do here we own it and you and your offspring. Apparently the only real difference in the policy is that they still claim ownership after you delete your account when before it was only while your account was active.

billbenson
02-17-2009, 09:57 AM
Since anything you post on someone else's site becomes their copyrighted material by default anyway, they could do this before the additional terms clarification.

Business Attorney
02-17-2009, 10:22 AM
Since anything you post on someone else's site becomes their copyrighted material by default anyway, they could do this before the additional terms clarification.

Bill, your statement is not true, at least under US copyright law. The person who creates a "work" (which may include blog posts, letters, photos, music, and many other creative endeavors) retains all rights to it except under certain specific circumstances, such as a "work for hire." If a person sends you a letter, you may not publish it without their permission. Posting on a website is no different than writing a letter.

Material posted on a website by a user does not belong to the website, absent a clear assignment of the copyright (and even the new Facebook terms and conditions don't go that far). The extent to which a website can use material posted is limited to whatever rights the copyright holder grants to it. Normally, that would not include the right to republish it in a different medium or to use it to advertise the website.

What the new terms and conditions mean is that Facebook can use your material in nearly any way it wants. If a publisher approaches Facebook and wants to license a photo you have posted, Facebook can grant the license (subject to your privacy settings) and keep the entire license fee. That certainly is not the case in the absence of these expansive terms and conditions.

rezzy
02-17-2009, 11:09 AM
I imagine this has to deal with Michael Phelps drug thing. They want to cover themselves in case something like this happens again.

Business Attorney
02-17-2009, 11:17 AM
I imagine this has to deal with Michael Phelps drug thing. They wont to cover themselves in case something like this happens again.

So that they can sell the rights to it and reap the profits?

billbenson
02-17-2009, 01:14 PM
I don't know. Everything I have ever seen states that anything posted on a web site becomes the copyrighted property of that web site. Other attorneys have posted this?

vangogh
02-17-2009, 04:30 PM
Just guessing on the Michael Phelps thing. I'm thinking the image that we've all seen was originally uploaded to Facebook which is where it was found. The TOS is probably designed to protect Facebook from getting sued even though the image passed through its site.

I'm not saying that's why it's there, but I'm guessing that's what Bryan meant by his comment.

Business Attorney
02-17-2009, 05:17 PM
I haven't looked at the old terms, but I am guessing they were pretty well protected before the latest changes. Sites like Facebook, YouTube and Flickr have plenty of attorneys looking out for their protection. The difference between Facebook's current terms and most other sites' terms is that the other sites generally say that they have a license to use your material only in connection with that website. YouTube even mentions that their rights to certain uses end if you take down the material.

Facebook, on the other hand, seems to be saying they can use your material in any way they want, including apparently commercial uses that are completely unrelated to the site. Your removing the material does not affect their rights. They can even sublicense the rights to whomever they want.

There are probably other sites that also take a very broad view of their rights to your material, but among the mainstream sites, Facebook seems to be making the biggest grab.

For most things, I don't think it really makes much difference. For a newsworthy photo like that of Michael Phelps or even some of the great creative photos I have seen, users should be aware that if they post on YouTube or Flickr, they will have the rights to commercially exploit their images but if they post those same images or videos on Facebook, Facebook will be able to license commercial use of their works without sharing any of the compensation with them.

CraigFLA
02-18-2009, 07:46 AM
What does it cost to open a Facebook account?

Aaron Hats
02-18-2009, 09:33 AM
Facebook Reverts to old TOS:

Facebook Yields to User Outrage: Reverts to Old TOS - PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/159720/facebook_yields_to_user_outrage_reverts_to_old_tos .html)

Aaron Hats
02-18-2009, 09:35 AM
What does it cost to open a Facebook account?

It's free.

rezzy
02-18-2009, 10:35 AM
Facebook Reverts to old TOS:

Facebook Yields to User Outrage: Reverts to Old TOS - PC World (http://www.pcworld.com/article/159720/facebook_yields_to_user_outrage_reverts_to_old_tos .html)

I was about to say the same thing.
From their website, as soon as your log in.

Terms of Use Update
Close

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.

vangogh
02-18-2009, 11:15 AM
Nice to see they're listening to their community. Can you imagine your phone company doing something similar?

KristineS
02-18-2009, 12:43 PM
I was just going to pop in and say that Facebook had reverted, but I see others have beaten me to it.

I guess it's good that Facebook listens to their users, but they keep putting things out there and then having to rescind them. The same thing happened with the Beacon advertising thing a few years back.

rezzy
02-18-2009, 01:36 PM
I guess it's good that Facebook listens to their users, but they keep putting things out there and then having to rescind them.

I think its good Facebook is in the business of pleasing their fan base. Even though they could be in the position to create policies and ignore the public opinion. Most people would stick it through.

Microsoft comes to mind, with Vista, believing they could create a frilly OS and people would gobble it up.

I wonder who saw the change in the TOS. Its not something most people check on a daily basis.

vangogh
02-18-2009, 06:07 PM
Facebook has had a few missteps it's true, but I don't think there's anything wrong with putting it out there and trying. While the recent TOS change certainly angered a lot of people I don't think there was anything malicious behind it.

We're talking about the Facebook TOS here, but has anyone ever read some other TOSs out there? There are plenty out there that are worse.

KristineS
02-19-2009, 12:38 PM
I wonder who saw the change in the TOS. Its not something most people check on a daily basis.

I think The Consumerist was the first to point it out, Rezzy, and then a lot of bloggers and Twitterers picked it up. I know the news spread pretty quickly.

rezzy
02-19-2009, 02:33 PM
I know the news spread pretty quickly.

With some many social networking sites, I could see how. Even this forum was full of posts and readers.

rezzy
02-26-2009, 03:10 PM
Today we announced new opportunities for users to play a meaningful role in determining the policies governing our site. We released the first proposals subject to these procedures – The Facebook Principles, a set of values that will guide the development of the service, and Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that governs Facebook’s operations. Users will have the opportunity to review, comment and vote on these documents over the coming weeks and, if they are approved, other future policy changes. We’ve posted the documents in separate groups and invite you to offer comments and suggestions. For more information and links to the two groups, check out the Facebook Blog.

New updates from Facebook people. Are they actually looking for our input?

KristineS
02-26-2009, 03:33 PM
Hmm, that's interesting Rezzy. I have a Facebook account, but I don't spend a great deal of time there. If they're serious about this, it could be a good thing.

vangogh
02-26-2009, 05:02 PM
Facebook does seem to listen to feedback. The irony here is that they aren't weren't doing anything different than pretty much all sites online. All Facebook did was be honest about it and next thing the online community trashed them for it. They listened and changed the TOS again based on the criticism.

This looks like a way to get some of that feedback in advance before making changes. It's a good way to engage their community and stem some future bad press for making a change people don't care for.

rezzy
02-26-2009, 06:18 PM
I think its good Facebook is so upfront about changes they make instead of sliding them in under cover. I just signed in for a min and this was the first thing to greet me on the page.