Facebook owns all rights to everything we've ever uploaded

[Rock-Angel]

what do you think to this??

http://mashable.com/2009/02/16/facebook-tos-privacy/

 

[Snuggle]

I wont be adding photos to Facebook anymore then. No point deleting the ones I already have as it seems they belong to Facebook now anyway

 

[Jade&Evie]

TBH it's probably all to cover their backs so they can't be sued for anything. Anything *so* private that I wouldn't want it to be public property I wouldn't publish on the net let alone Facebook. I think people seem to forget it's a social networking site sometimes.

 

[Krystal]

TBH it's probably all to cover their backs so they can't be sued for anything. Anything *so* private that I wouldn't want it to be public property I wouldn't publish on the net let alone Facebook. I think people seem to forget it's a social networking site sometimes.

Totally agree with Jade

 

[beanie]

TBH it's probably all to cover their backs so they can't be sued for anything. Anything *so* private that I wouldn't want it to be public property I wouldn't publish on the net let alone Facebook. I think people seem to forget it's a social networking site sometimes.

I agree, and I can't see facebook being so enamoured with the photos of my kids they want to keep them forever and ever. Most sites are the same from what I understand

 

[abcd1234]

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.

Don't like that bit tbh, but i cant control whats on facebook, my friend will take pics off my profile and post them on hers which isn't private, no matter how anal i got about it pics of myself and Tally would always find their way on to it, thats the problem with all this technology we have

 

[mummykay]

yeah if u dnt want people seein stuff then dont put it on the net lol

 

[Potbelijo]

Most websites have this sub clause girls, sorry.

 

[valentine]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7896309.stm

 

[Ladybird]

I had this message on my facebook homepage this mornnig....



Terms of Use UpdateClose
Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.

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

 

[Jade&Evie]

I don't really see the huge fuss.

If I send a picture to a friend of Evie via hotmail for instance it stops being just my property and I give hotmail permission to send that photo IYKWIM. If I wanted to make sure it couldn't be used for advertising I would watermark it but tbh if I was really worried about who could see it/ if my friend would forward it on etc then I wouldn't send it in the first place.

 

[widowwadman]

Jade's right. And it's not that facebook obtains the exclusive rights to your pictures, they only safeguard themselves from nutcase litigation.

No need for hysteria.

 

[lisa&alex]

I think the part that i was uncomfortable about the previous statement fb issued was that they had the rights.. to edit and sell. that makes me feel uncomfortable.. and i think its a good thing they reverted back to the old terms and conditions.

 

[lfc_sarah]

 

[SarahH]

Tis not true.... the head guy of FB was on TV here last night, he said the terms never changed, it is just a networking site,nothing more!

 

[Krystal]

Tis not true.... the head guy of FB was on TV here last night, he said the terms never changed, it is just a networking site,nothing more!

I think they did change cos they had a thing on facebook this morning saying they were changing them back until they had sorted it all out so it was clearer

 

[SarahH]

Tis not true.... the head guy of FB was on TV here last night, he said the terms never changed, it is just a networking site,nothing more!

I think they did change cos they had a thing on facebook this morning saying they were changing them back until they had sorted it all out so it was clearer

Well thats not what he said

 

[Krystal]

Tis not true.... the head guy of FB was on TV here last night, he said the terms never changed, it is just a networking site,nothing more!

I think they did change cos they had a thing on facebook this morning saying they were changing them back until they had sorted it all out so it was clearer

Well thats not what he said

He's a liar goddamit!

Someone posted the announcement;

I had this message on my facebook homepage this mornnig....



Terms of Use UpdateClose
Over the past few days, we have received a lot of feedback about the new terms we posted two weeks ago. Because of this response, we have decided to return to our previous Terms of Use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. For more information, visit the Facebook Blog.

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

 

[SarahH]

He's a liar goddamit!

Probably.... I never had that announcement on my FB this morning!

 

[Urchin]

Users lash out at Facebook over ownership of postings

Online networking site claims that all the material is theirs





In the face of a growing online storm over the ownership of content posted to Facebook, the social-networking company said Monday the campaign against its new terms of service wrongly assumes Facebook claims ownership of material forever, even if users close their accounts.

Until now, Facebook's worldwide licence to any uploaded material automatically expired if a user removed it and closed the account, according to the old terms of service (TOS).

The new terms, in effect since Feb. 4, struck a key line that stated the licence to use uploaded content in promotional or advertising materials expired automatically if you removed your content.

After an influential online publication on Sunday blasted Facebook under the headline, "We can do anything we want with your content. Forever," news spread quickly on the blogosphere.

By Monday, the story made the top 10 list of most talked about topics on Twitter Inc.'s micro-blogging service. And three Facebook groups had been created, under the banner "Facebook owns you: Protest the New Changes to the TOS."

On Monday, a spokesman for Facebook, based in Palo Alto, Calif., tried to quell the concerns.

"We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.

"The new terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behaviour of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc.), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend)," Barry Schnitt said in a statement.

He also pointed out that this licence is made subject to the user's privacy settings and it only allows Facebook to use the information in connection with the promotion of the site.

"Users generally expect and understand this behaviour as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail. For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account," said Schnitt.

Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg also weighed in on the controversy Monday, writing on the Facebook blog that, "Our philosophy that people own their information and control who they share it with has remained constant.

"A lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective of the rights we need to provide this service to you. Over time we will continue to clarify our positions and make the terms simpler."

Despite the assurances from Facebook, Rick Macl, a Winnipeg user, said he's had enough. He sent a note to all his Facebook friends Monday, saying he will be closing his account in two weeks. The new terms of service were just the last straw, he said.

"You know what Facebook is? It's a company that gets as much information on you, and they sell it to the highest bidder," he said in an interview, referring to its use of targeted advertising.

"You're supposed to be able to set your privacy settings, but if they take that information for advertising, where is the privacy? And even if you cancel, they can hang on to your information? Is this even legal? Facebook can go to hell. I'm done with them." Separately, Facebook is the subject of an ongoing investigation by Canada's privacy commissioner. Jennifer Stoddart launched an investigation last year into whether the Facebook is breaking the law when it passes on sensitive personal information to advertisers and other profit-making companies without securing meaningful consent.