According to The Consumerist, Facebook made a small but significant change to its TOS ("Terms of Service"): now they claim complete ownership of all of the content you upload for all time and can use it for any purpose, including making money off it, even if you close your account. A read-through of key points in Facebook's TOS shows just how extraordinary their claims are to your creations (words, photos, videos, audio--even your name!).
1. "You are solely responsible for the User Content that you Post on or through the Facebook Service.... You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses."
In other words, if you infringe someone else's copyright by uploading material for which you do not have the right, then it is your fault and not Facebook's. And you assert that all the content you upload is yours to hand over forever to Facebook. "Hand over forever"?
2. "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."
Yes, "hand over forever". They can do anything they want with it, even if you close your account. The previous TOS made it clear that, once you cancelled your account with Facebook, they would no longer retain these rights over your uploaded materials. However, things have changed. Now, even if you have left Facebook, the company can use your name and any photos or other content you uploaded in their advertising or "in connection with the Facebook Service". But what is the "Facebook Service"?
3. The "Facebook Service" is much more than what people normally think of as "Facebook-the-website". It can include any medium currently existing (books, films, audio, or whatever) and any medium developed in future. As detailed in the company's new TOS, "The 'Facebook Service' means the features, services and properties that Facebook makes available through (a) www.facebook.com or any other Facebook-branded or co-branded website (including, without limitation, any and all sub-domains and all international, mobile versions and successors thereof), (b) the Facebook Platform and ( c ) other media, devices or networks now existing or later developed."
In other words, once you upload it, they own it and can do whatever they like--however they like--with it until the end of the universe.
Update: At 2.09pm today (Monday, 16th February 2009), creator and CEO of Facebook Mark Zuckerberg posted a long blog entry that tries to downplay the significance of the company's TOS. However, even granting Facebook's current desire to maintain the "trust" of its users and not to use the powers it gives itself in the TOS, the problem remains that the wording of the TOS does let them do whatever they want with your content.
It may not be in their interests to exercise those powers now, but who can tell what the future will bring? Will there come a time when it is in their interests to capitalise upon those powers?
... Kidding!
+infinity
This TOS is bull****. Never seen such crap ever.
We should have read the TOS better >_<
Therefore, terminate the contract between you and facebook, stop using it, and the TOS is void?
You can't just make someone agree to something, then change it mid stream. Contracts are a 2 way street.
Read the ToS!
Read the ToS!
Do you really think that because a company write a TOS and ask you to press a button that is it automatically something that would stand up in a court ?
Checking a box and pushing a button is not considered in many countries and state as a signture with any real value.
The status of TOS is the same as EULA.
Some web sites and software EULAs contain terms that assert that various electronic and other actions give rise to legally effective signatures. For example, a web page might announce that, by accessing the site at all, you have agreed to a certain set of terms and conditions. A software product might assert, in its packaging or on an early installation screen, that by using it you have agreed to licensing terms. These may or may not have been discernible prior to sale, and may or may not be completely displayed even at installation. Such licenses often include such restrictions as a prohibition of reviewing the product for publication (electronic or otherwise) without prior permission of the publisher/distributor, or prohibition on studying the product (i.e., reverse engineering) for an otherwise lawful purpose such as producing data files in a compatible format. Some such claims would appear to be contrary to patent law (which requires public disclosure as a condition of granting a patent) or to copyright law which does the same for works available to the public, or to contract law which requires informed knowing assent to reasonable contract terms as a condition of enforceability in court. Only if all such covered matters are trade secrets would many such clauses appear sustainable, but even so a condition of trade secrecy is maintenance of the secret by the holder. This may not be met in the case of a widely distributed product offered for sale to anyone.
The legal status of such claims is uncertain. In the US, only two states have adopted a new revision of the Uniform Commercial Code which authorize such licensing restrictions, with disclosure after purchase. The validity of such terms remains uncertain, despite the views of many EULA authors. Analogies to the physical world in which contracts and signatures are written, signed, and stored in tangible form suggest that analogous terms would not be acceptable. In the UK, Regulation 9 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2013) requires that a purchaser is able to determine in advance “the different technical steps to follow to conclude the contract.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signatures
Last edited by tester.br on 17 Feb 2009 - 06:03
Glad I don't use facebook, myspace or any of these other "social" sites.
Why is your comment almost identical to comment #1 ? Even down to the punctuation and spacing.
Last edited by tester.br on 17 Feb 2009 - 06:02
More garbage crap!!
Should ALL be against the law!!
Should ALL be against the law!!
oh boy, you leave me not knowing where to start to comment your comment...
i won't, because it's utterly useless.
- free service.
- ???.
- profit !
May be they are profiting by using the personal information.
- free service.
- ???.
- profit !
May be they are profiting by using the personal information.
yes they do...kinda. its called targeted advertising and its allllll the rage in marketing these days
I tried Facebook and found many on it just too childish, and I'm talking about the adults.
Or are you just randomly adding people from all over? If so...sad.
There are so many outfits pulling this crap it makes me sad to see the future of the web. We need to rewrite the laws concerning contracts... This stuff isn't fair to pull...
time to delete my newly created account. not sure why i even created it haha
You can bet that many Harvard users (if not all) dropped their account several years ago when facebook decided to be "open to everyone".
ps
If I wanted privacy on a social networking site, I'd not sign up. I use it to keep in touch with my friends that I don't particularly want to speak with in real life for whatever reason (dullness, a**holishness, etc).
The day they forced "New Facebook" on their users they started down a slippery slope. Perhaps it's time to revert to the blog. It may not be as glamorous or as connected but it's mine to control
What is there for them to enforce? It's not like the changes are a restriction on users. It just means they can do what the hell they want with your data. Which is wrong.
F*** Face****
Must stop upping any thing and find a way to close my account ASAP then
*******
Leon
.... Wait, I don't HAVE anything posted. Carry on.
Last edited by Xerxes on 16 Feb 2009 - 23:56
-Spenser
@Zilos - those photos are pretty much out in the public. Even if your profile is private anyone can see/take those photos if they managed to get the direct url for the photo. They could say they own that picture too and you'd probably never find out. If you cared that much about those pictures being your own and wanting to make money off of them, you probably shouldn't have uploaded them onto your facebook profile in the first place. There's other places for that online.
*facepalm*
I know I would have skipped it all and click "ok" but I smell something illegal in the way they changed it.
I know I would have skipped it all and click "ok" but I smell something illegal in the way they changed it.
First paragraph - it's always been there
You accepted it once, and thus you accepted all future changes to it. Lot's of TOS's are like that.
Last edited by qwertz123 on 17 Feb 2009 - 03:05
the TOS
thats why.
That's the reason why TOS won't stand a chance in court. You can't have a contract with floating binding terms. Accepting a contract doesn't mean that you have to automatically accept changes later made into it even if it is explicably states so. You need to *sign* the changes in order to validate your acceptance to that and even if you are and idiot or incapable to protect yourself the law will still protect you.
I'll give you an example: I read the new terms and I don't accept. I *still* have to login, thus using the service that supposedly means automatic acceptance of TOS change, to remove my content.
It definitely won't stand a chance in court.
The photos there arent high enough resolution to actually use for anything.
It was usefull in finding an ex girlfriend from many years go and some other dumb bitches who were in my life, and what they're up to now.
It was usefull in finding an ex girlfriend from many years go and some other dumb bitches who were in my life, and what they're up to now.
lol that made me laugh. But still this TOS IS BULL!!! They take the absolute p***. The creator is a dick he don't care about other people he just wants to exploit them and make money. Everything in this world is exploited!!
Just dont upload anything you deem valuable. Obvious.
->
Its like someone purchases a mobile phone contract for say, 30 a month for 1000 minutes and 800 texts with a free phone - that the customer and company agrees to according to the ToS. Then, say, on the 5th month, the company decides to change its tariff ratings so the customer gets only 400 minutes and 200 texts for 30/month - he didn't agree to the change as it was not in the contract (hence its breach).
Ill bet they saved it already
Damn you facebook, damn you zuckerberg
Any idiot can see this is so you don't use a free service for commercial reasons...like the kid up there posting pictures that he sells.
It's hilarious what you all get your feathers ruffled over. Don't like it, don't use it.
And that's exactly what I'm doing now.
Nothing wrong with spreading awareness about it.
Imagine a complete profile of each person in the hands of advertisers and even spamers or others...
No need to get worked up about it.
While the Govt. might think that your data are theirs to flog to marketing companies / cross-link to unrelated "services", the same does not apply to private companies or individuals.
While the Govt. might think that your data are theirs to flog to marketing companies / cross-link to unrelated "services", the same does not apply to private companies or individuals.
This is where I'd love to live in UK right now lol.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson (1762-1826)
I don't need social profiles anyways, most of it is my friend's idiot wife posting racial slurs and pictures of **** no one cares about. I had created it originally because it was an easy way to share pics (that I cared about), but not anymore.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.