Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Facebook Lets Advertisers Use Pictures Without Permission

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the controlling-rights-to-your-face dept.

Privacy 260

Krokz sends in an LA Times piece that begins "A warning is bouncing through cyberspace today, landing on the Facebook statuses of many of the social networking site's users. The message: 'Facebook has agreed to let third party advertisers use your posted pictures without your permission.' It continues with a prescription of how you can protect your photos." The attention-grabbing incident in this furor involved a married woman, whose photo appeared in an ad for a dating service that was presented to her husband to view. Fortunately, both husband and wife had a sense of humor about it.

cancel ×

260 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sense of humor? (0, Troll)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#28821965)

I guess some people will put up with anything in exchange for appearing in the media somewhere. Frankly, after all the very public warnings about facebook I have no sympathy for anyone foolish enough to use their service.

Hmmm (1)

j_w_d (114171) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822235)

Do you mean to say that if a photo of your wife appeared like this you wouldn't contact her for a date? Tsk!

Re:Sense of humor? (1)

DavidR1991 (1047748) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822449)

Frankly, after all the very public warnings about facebook I have no sympathy for anyone foolish enough to use their service.

Which is a stupid approach to take, considering the warnings would have come some time after many had users had signed up (and since FB has no intention of allowing account destruction = fail)

Re:Sense of humor? (1, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822707)

Actually the stupid approach is the one so many have taken -- posting all their personal photos and data online. I have never and will never do such a thing. And since most of my family and all of my friends have more sense than to do such a thing, I have no real cause to be concerned.
Duh!
:)

Re:Sense of humor? (4, Insightful)

flowsnake (1051494) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822491)

What if someone else posts a picture in which you are present? Odds are that you have been to a family or social gathering at which someone has a camera, and has later uploaded the photographs. Avoid Facebook all you like, but if friends and family use it you are likely to end up on there whether you like it or not.

Re:Sense of humor? (2, Insightful)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822703)

> What if someone else posts a picture in which you are present?

What if the New York Times puts a photo with you in it on their front page? The photographer owns the copyright.

Re:Sense of humor? (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822907)

... but you would need to sign a model release [wikipedia.org] before an advertiser could use it.

Re:Sense of humor? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28823061)

Looks like the FaceBook TOS includes a model release of a sort, doesn't it?

Re:Sense of humor? (4, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 5 years ago | (#28823169)

Actually no. If you find one of your photos used in an ad, contact that company asking for $30,000.00 for use of the photo.

If they dont, Pull a DMCA takedown on their ass via their ISP.

Honesty, people need to use the same scumbag tactics these companies use.

Re:Sense of humor? (4, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822929)

"Frankly, after all the very public warnings about facebook I have no sympathy for anyone foolish enough to use their service."

That's why I post my personal pics to 4chan where they will be respected!

Old news (1, Offtopic)

lezerno (775940) | more than 5 years ago | (#28821969)

My wife, who is not that up on tech things, told me about this earlier in the week.

Re:Old news (0, Troll)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822475)

What is "tech" about this?

Re:Old news (1)

Odinlake (1057938) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822803)

What is "tech" about this?

It's on the Internet. This time around however, people here seem instinctively to be in favour of copyright *gdr*.

Holy Cow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28821977)

You mean that a company can make my face appear in an advert? That sounds terrifying...no wait, it doesn't. Why was I supposed to care about this again?

Re:Holy Cow! (4, Funny)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822079)

Ok, you heard it here first - Anonymous Coward for thinks Stayfree Maxi Pads are the best [insert pic]

Re:Holy Cow! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822143)

Hey, that's Anonymous Cowardon to you pal!!

Re:Holy Cow! (5, Funny)

Anonymous CowHardon (1605679) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822417)

Careful there, you're almost treading on my new handle!

Re:Holy Cow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822655)

How many times are you gona set that joke up before you get bored of it?

Re:Holy Cow! (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822685)

According to his user page, this is the one time he's commented. Give a cowhardon a break!

Re:Holy Cow! (3, Funny)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 5 years ago | (#28823143)

Give a cowhardon a break!

Sounds painful - real painful

Re:Holy Cow! (1)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | more than 5 years ago | (#28823189)

I can't believe I just spent a minute in Python decoding your signature just to be insulted!

Big deal (4, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28821989)

Apart from goatse, I don't have any pictures on facebook.

Re:Big deal (5, Funny)

Kifoth (980005) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822119)

Change your profile pic to a text image reading 'DON'T BUY THIS PRODUCT!' Then set your privacy settings to be as accommodating to advertisers as possible :)

You can't tell me what to do! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822955)

I'm going to buy your product anyway just to prove that I don't have to do what you say! NANANANANANA. Na.

Re:Big deal (2, Funny)

papaskunk (718169) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822761)

What is this goatse? Is there a picture or something you can show me so I can get an idea of what you're talking about?

Re:Big deal (5, Insightful)

NeuroKoan (12458) | more than 5 years ago | (#28823083)

Before you start googling around, remember that once you see it, you can't unsee it.

Re:Big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28823193)

Used to be a famous picture, but strangely enough, it's been taken off the internet. So much for the Streisand effect!

Re:Big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822857)

That reminds me of a co-worker. I punished him for using MySpace a little while ago
He forgot to logout when he went to lunch and when he came back his MySpace profile picture would allow anyone to look deep into his body.

Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook blog. (5, Informative)

jdigital (84195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822003)

(From http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=110636457130 [facebook.com] )

In the past couple of days, a rumor has begun spreading that claims we have changed our policies for third-party advertisers and the use of your photos. These rumors are false, and we have made no such change in our advertising policies. If you see a Wall post or receive a message with the following language or something similar, it is this false rumor:

FACEBOOK has agreed to let third party advertisers use your posted pictures WITHOUT your permission.

The advertisements that started these rumors were not from Facebook but placed within applications by third parties. Those ads violated our policies by misusing profile photos, and we already required the removal of those deceptive ads from third-party applications before this rumor began spreading. We are as concerned as many of you are about any potential threat to your experience on Facebook and the protection of your privacy. That's why we prohibit ads on Facebook Platform that cause a bad user experience, are misleading, or otherwise violate our policies. Along with removing ads, we've recently prohibited two entire advertising networks from providing services to applications on Facebook Platform because they were not compliant with our policies and failed to correct their practices.

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (5, Informative)

ghostis (165022) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822073)

Mod up please. /. really should check snopes/company blogs before posting summaries like this... :-/

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (1, Insightful)

ghostis (165022) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822085)

The parent comment - not mine ;-)

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822497)

Mod up please. /. really should check snopes/company blogs before posting summaries like this... :-/

CmdrTaco has made it very clear several times that he has no intention of having himself or the other *ahem* editors verify these kinds of things before posting them.

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822569)

Snopes...Probably.
Company blogs...really? I just don't see that as unbiased enough for a fair assessment of the situation*. Word-bandying is just too easy and too common. That's why lawyers cost $400/hr.

Kind of like the Martians running around shooting people, with translator boxes saying "don't run, we are your friends!"

*in general. TFS did not lead me to TFA, so in this particular instance I have no founded opinion**.

**unfounded opinion:

3-5 yrs ago: Hey I have this neat idea that people will love.

1-2 yrs ago: Alrighty, we're mainstream, now we can have ads outside the normal banner format based on peoples freely and absentmindedly divulged personal info.

6 mths ago: Well, our unsustainable growth in a market with very little tangible good and service is proving exactly that, especially as these tough economic times get tougher. However, our target percentages do not meet our horseshit expectations. Hey I have an idea...

Yesterday: Crap.

Today: We have not now or ever done anything, and this is all just speculation and innuendo. If the glove don't fit you must acquit.

6 mths from now: We at MyTweetBook have over 30 years experience safegaurding your ... blah blah blah and have never such and such. Chocolate rations and whatnot.

If they're doing this, they're assfaces. If not, that crappy rumor is only advertising for them.

Re:Unfounded rumor - more background (5, Informative)

1sockchuck (826398) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822081)

The ad network misbehavior that fueled this rumor was covered by VentureBeat [venturebeat.com] in early June, when these networks were banned by Facebook.

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (4, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822161)

What Mark Zuckerberg really means is:

We have banned the third party applications responsible for exploiting the privacy of our userbase, because we reserve the right to exploit their privacy OURSELVES".

After all, there IS an option for this in the user settings, so its eems pretty clear that they either already do something similar or intend to in the future. The response from facebook is nothing more than Apple kicking an application out of their iphone app store, because they want to introduce their own version of it and make the money for themselves.

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (-1, Redundant)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822227)

*bump* --please mod up!

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (4, Informative)

jdigital (84195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822237)

If you read the entire blog post you'll see that they describe that option fully. When enabled, it lets your friends see whether you have joined a Fan or Group page. Completely tame and clearly explained.

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822287)

Why don't they say that, then? By wording it as blanket permission for "Appearance in Facebook Ads", it certainly carries an implication that you're giving them permission (opted in by default) to use your likeness in Facebook ads.

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (1)

Seumas (6865) | more than 5 years ago | (#28823181)

I ball BS on that, too.

It doesn't say "Advertise your participation in Facebook groups and fan pages", it says "Appearance in FACEBOOK ADS".

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822239)

Thank god for that, for a moment i w.. wait, i wanted it to be real so some people would have went nuts. .. nuts, hilarity ruined. :(

then what do they actually use? (5, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822263)

They do actually have a Privacy option, opted in by default, entitled "Appearance in Facebook Ads". I could forgive users for believing that this option, if set on, allowed them to, well, appear in Facebook Ads. The explanatory text isn't particularly clear, either:

Facebook occasionally pairs advertisements with relevant social actions from a user's friends to create Facebook Ads. Facebook Ads make advertisements more interesting and more tailored to you and your friends. These respect all privacy rules. You may opt out of appearing in your friends' Facebook Ads below.

It sounds like they're using something from your profile in Facebook ads shown to your friends, and it certainly doesn't explicitly rule out using your photos when they have you "appear[] in your friends' Facebook Ads".

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (5, Insightful)

JustinOpinion (1246824) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822385)

Okay. This is "better" in the sense that it is not Facebook itself exploiting user pictures. But it's still bothersome on some level. In particular it's bothersome that Facebook's default privacy rules make this possible. It seems that enabling an application gives that application near-limitless access to a person's account. It's all well and good that Facebook's policies forbid this, and that they've retroactively done something about it. But why was the access there in the first place?

I do think users need to take some responsibility. They should be more careful about the text and photos they upload to some company's servers, and the applications they enable. But still it seems that Facebook is way too permissive with privacy and security settings, and that they are continually pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable with respect to advertising. For instance, why is it that when you go: SETTINGS > PRIVACY SETTINGS > NEWS FEEDS AND WALL, the "Appearance in Facebook Ads" is by default enabled. You need to manually turn it off. Yes it's up to users to manage their privacy settings, but having users continually being opted-in to these kinds of things (without any particular announcement, that I'm aware of) smacks of "let's see what we can get away with--and apologize only if we have to...".

Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822549)

"... two entire advertising networks ..."

Who are they and how big are they to merit "entire"?

The Evil Plot (2, Insightful)

Akira Kogami (1566305) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822005)

It seems at this point like Facebook's plan was to make itself an indispensable part of millions of people's lives and then abuse them like this because they know most users still won't quit.

In other news (2, Insightful)

PBoyUK (1591865) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822009)

Man who continually stands in the middle of the road is hit by a car. Seriously, what are these people expecting when they sign up to a site like Facebook?

Re:In other news (4, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822193)

I'm sorry, but that's stupid. That's like saying that you deserve to have your information exploited and released in any way whatsoever for ANY website you use. Or, for that matter, for any ISP you use (since ISP terms of service often include the right for the ISP to use any content you transmit over their connections).

Facebook is no worse than many other services and much better than some. Like other sites, they COULD full out abuse their users, but even if they don't have a "do no evil" mission statement, they do want to keep good-will of their user base or else everyone will move on to the next thing just like everyone moved on from MySpace.

That said, Facebook has massive sketchy potential, but not anything particularly more than other sites like LinkedIn or Picassa, or Flickr or Slashdot (which for all we know could just decide one day to un-anonymize your every message you ever posted while logged in).

Now, using facebook applications? THAT I would definitely agree with you on. The first thing you should do on Facebook is shut off all applications and hooks to applications.

Re:In other news (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822357)

There is not so long distance from this to newspapers complaining about Google News. Once you publish to the world your photo it could be used anywhere unless expressly forbidden. If Facebook had such kind of restriction on the photos published in its site, then can sue that advertiser.

Probably also could be a not so long distance from spammers, that usually take real emails from unrelated people to send their offers. In both cases is "you" attached to an unrelated company product/offer because some of your information is somewhat public.

Re:In other news (1)

ToadProphet (1148333) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822387)

It isn't trivial with ISP's or websites, but Facebook is a one-stop shop for data mining, profiling, etc.

That isn't to say that I think we need to don the tin foil hats immediately, but do realize that the data is permanent (well, sorta). What you post there today might be innocent enough, but neither you nor I know what the future holds and how your rants against or leanings toward lefties or righties or whatever might be viewed in the future.

Re:In other news (2, Informative)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822829)

Facebook's entire reason for existing is collecting advertising information and making advertisements more effective. Why would you act like it is terribly misguided to declare that by using Facebook, people are asking to be subjected to this kind of stupidity? The entire setup of Facebook is designed to extract as much information about you and how you interact with your friends as possible.

Re:In other news (2, Insightful)

PBoyUK (1591865) | more than 5 years ago | (#28823115)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's an acceptable thing, but people really don't have much to complain about when they upload so many personally identifiable details about themselves that are so publicly available. It'd be like complaining about getting a virus from some warez site. No, the virus should not have been there, but you have to accept the risk that comes with what you do. The average facebook clone user I know puts absolutely zero thought into how to protect their privacy, and I'll bet a lot of them are the same way.

Re:In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28823239)

I was expecting to have anonymous gay sex with like-minded linux users. FB delivers.

facebook generation (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822015)

mark my words, the current generation who post anything and everything on myspace and facebook will end up regretting it. I have to wonder what will happen when facebook goes into decline and cash dries up, and they start selling pictures to porn sites. what if you go for a job and they recognise you from a site you have nothing to do with called bustedpartysluts.com?

unless facebook has you sign a proper model release form, i can't see how this kind of use is going to hold up.

Re:facebook generation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822219)

Of course, your comment could apply to EVERY site you ever use that you provide ANY data to. Hell, even your ISP. All you have to rely on is the need to maintain good-will toward customers.

Also, nudity and porn is not allowed on Facebook, so... Yeah, good luck with that hypothetical grandpa.

Re:facebook generation (0, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822345)

grandpa? i'm 29 you spastic, but clearly you are a lot younger and inexperienced then i am because you failed to conceive the possibility that nudity doesn't matter in the slightest - if you were an attractive female they could easily use only your head shot. let alone there are still plenty of racey photo's of people on facebook anyway.

Re:facebook generation (2, Funny)

palindrome (34830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822899)

29? You're a grandpa, live with it. I'm 31 and have learned to deal with the youth-focus of society.

That said, grandparent is a spastic... I just blew my own mind with ageism C4.

(also it's the internet you idiot, you post it the world sees it (and Facebook is shit))

If anyone can trace the focus of this post then please let me know - issues when I agree with both sides make me a confused and angry old man.

Re:facebook generation (2, Insightful)

limonadito (969409) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822279)

what if you go for a job and they recognise you from a site you have nothing to do with called bustedpartysluts.com?

If they recognize me from bustedpartysluts.com I'm not sure I'd want to work for them...or would that make a very interesting workplace?

Re:facebook generation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822521)

Agreed. And add to that scenario, the ZOMG!!!1!! the terrorists use facebook!!1!!. A win-win - boost profits by selling data to government agencies and protect us all. Or they just take it.

Re:facebook generation (1)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822595)

Sell it to a porn site? Why on earth would a porn site want pictures from FaceBook, the vast majority of which are of fully clothed individuals? The zillion photos FaceBook has have no monetary value besides the traffic they bring from people who are friends the individuals in the pictures.

Now there are other reasons you shouldn't post incriminating pics to FaceBook, but porn sites buying them isn't it.

Re:facebook generation (1)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822931)

Sell it to a porn site? Why on earth would a porn site want pictures from FaceBook, the vast majority of which are of fully clothed individuals?

There are actually websites out there that pay you for those types of photos. They have some banner that says "We found these sluts on MySpace!" and show you some of the pictures that girls like to take in the mirror wearing a bathing suit, drunk at a party making out with another girl, or just a hot girl who is fully clothed. The idea is that people will see those photos and think "Oh if I buy a membership I can see THAT GIRL naked! When all they have is a couple photos that look like they came from MySpace mixed in with a bunch of topless or sexual photos of other girls that were submitted to the site and not taken from a social networking site.

Re:facebook generation (1)

basementman (1475159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822985)

Websites like that generally don't bother paying for photos or getting the proper rights. They just host offshore and copy paste them to their hearts content.

Re:facebook generation (4, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822963)

I'm getting real tired of this attitude. My generation isn't stupid. They know what they're doing -- they're creating a transparent society where we can all be a bit more polite to one another because everyone has dirt on everyone else, and because we want to put ourselves out there and make friends, rather than dying alone in some castle with all our toys like the boomers are right now, because they wanted their precious privacy. We actually want a gender and color-blind society, built on freedom and transparency -- and we're doing just that. Oh, the humanity! The only thing this generation regrets is that management is generally 40+ and thinks that because someone doesn't have their personal information out there, they're somehow better qualified. Which is about the only thing I hear people worrying about with their online profiles -- not whether their friends, or even their own mother, or pastor, or old high school teacher, finds out about those drunken photos. But the boomers, and their outdated notions of privacy and freedom, will die before us. This is why I'm glad people don't live forever... new ideas would never have a chance if we did.

Re:facebook generation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822965)

I see another thing happening as well: people will just stop caring. If everybody's got pictures of themselves drunk at a party somewhere, then maybe the next generation won't feign surprise whenever someone is shown to be enjoying alcohol. I really hope it's closer to the latter.

Through various relatives and teaching positions I have seen jr-high and high-school age kids just live their entire lives on these networks. And it's not just a few of them. It's everybody. So I really think what's going to happen is that cognitive dissonance is going to melt away, and the people who blog more than others aren't really going to be taken to task over it.

At least, I hope that happens. Hearing about a new case every month where some poor kid is suspended or arrested or sued or what-have-you for saying something stupid online...everybody needs to just get over themselves.

bustedpartysluts.com (2, Funny)

Brother Seamus (937658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28823249)

...what if you go for a job and they recognise you from a site you have nothing to do with called bustedpartysluts.com?

If I recognize an applicant from bustedpartysluts.com, she's almost certainly going to be hired.

They had permission; headline wrong. (5, Informative)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822041)

Read the terms of service [facebook.com] .

When you sign up you agree to the terms of service, which clearly says you grant Facebook an unlimited, worldwide licence to use anything you post on Facebook. Unfortunately, no reads it!

Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (1)

Nossie (753694) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822075)

/. preview: no one reads it!

Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (3, Interesting)

edman007 (1097925) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822325)

Yea, grant Facebook and unlimited license, I would not consider this license to extend to facebooks affiliates/advertisers. The issue is that its not facebook using it, they gave your IP to advertisers, and the ToS does not appear to give facebook the right to sell the unlimited license to anyone they please, but IANAL, so what do i know.

Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822503)

Yea, grant Facebook and unlimited license, I would not consider this license to extend to facebooks affiliates/advertisers.

FFS. I fyou are going to comment on the terms of service, you should at least read the terms of service:

you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook

Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (4, Informative)

Vetala (1543063) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822633)

Well, actually, they do say a "[...] transferable, sub-licensable [...] license", so yes, they are asking to extend it to other people (otherwise applications couldn't use it if they were (for example) posting your profile photo in a competitive ladder, or perhaps Facebook uses a 3rd party caching server).

HOWEVER, they do also say that it is "subject to your privacy and application settings" which puts a fair limit on what they are allowed to do with it - basically it says who they or anyone to whom they sub-license can only use it in ways that your privacy settings allow (which along with all their other terms basically says that you don't need to worry about advertisers using - or even having - your information unless the advertiser isn't following the rules).

Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (1)

genik76 (1193359) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822359)

If one would read the terms of service linked by you, one would see that Facebook states that "We do not give your content to advertisers."

Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822555)

They say that now, but their TOS retain the right for them to do so if they choose.

Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (1)

palindrome (34830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822915)

And if the TOS says they have the right to "gun down your relatives in front of your eyes and laugh like feral jackals while eating tasty pies" then that would stand up in court, right?

Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28823179)

In Pakistan [crescentlife.com] it might...

Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (1)

Another David (1603417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822689)

AGREED! rtfm before you sign up for shit... even though fb has apparently revoked advertising rights from the people who did that, but still. they do have the right to sell the photos you post on facebook.

Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822727)

Even though they say that, I doubt it would hold up in court if someone decided to fight them. It's not a binding legal contract because like you said, nobody reads that stuff let alone signed anything.

I'm pretty sure if taken to task a person's copyright would trump any claims Facebook would be able to make. Especially considering services like Facebook are almost like public utilities therefore negating any rights they have to plunder your stuff.

Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822897)

Right, they have full permission to do this. But remember, truth doesn't always make interesting headlines.

Jimmy Buffett (actually, Rupert Holmes) (1, Funny)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822049)

I was tired of my lady,
We've been together too long.
Like a worn-out recording,
Of a favorite song.
So while she lay there sleeping,
I read the paper in bed.
And in the personals column,
There was this letter I read:

"If you like Pina Coladas,
And getting caught in the rain.
If you're not into yoga,
If you have half-a-brain.
If you like making love at midnight,
In the dunes of the cape.
I'm the lady you've looked for,
Write to me, and escape."

Parent's not off-topic (spoiler alert) (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822723)

It's just an oblique reference to an oldie the moderator didn't know.

Spoiler [wikipedia.org] :

The song speaks, in three verses and three choruses, of a man who, disenchanted with his current relationship, reads the personals and spots an ad that catches his attention: the ad of a woman who is seeking a man who, among other things, must like piña coladas. Intrigued, he writes back and arranges to meet with the woman "at a bar called O'Malley's", only to find upon the meeting that his new lover is his current lover. The song ends on an upbeat note, showing that the two lovers realized they have more in common than they suspected, and that they do not have to look any further than each other for what they seek in a relationship. This rekindles their relationship.

Re:Parent's not off-topic (spoiler alert) (1)

palindrome (34830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28823111)

Yeah, it's like Babushka. That Kate Bush knew a lot about Facebook. That's why her name kinda rhymes with it.

Re:Jimmy Buffett (actually, Rupert Holmes) (5, Funny)

palindrome (34830) | more than 5 years ago | (#28823093)

If you're now bored of Slashdot
Because your posts are always wrong
Why not spend your time on there
posting lyrics of old songs.
So while you should be sleeping,
or reading papers in bed
you confuse people normal people
who aren't completely brain dead.

"If you like Pina Coladas
And getting caught in the rain
then you're pretty simple
and you've got half a brain
If you like making love at midnight,
In the dunes of the cape.
Then you're just too specific
And I'd question if you're sane."

I think the depth of those tossed off lyrics touch all of our hearts. Remember when you have no opinions of your own then lyrics are just as good.

Hey you Kids! Pay Attention! (1)

rueger (210566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822101)

Lord almighty. As usual with Facebook controversies, you can very easily opt out of this and never have your photo used by an advertiser.

And of course, Facebook is not mandatory, it's something that you choose to be part of.

And of course, why in hell do so many people post illegal or embarrassing items to a fairly public and insecure site?

Re:Hey you Kids! Pay Attention! (2, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822275)

As usual with Facebook controversies, you can very easily opt out of this and never have your photo used by an advertiser.

You can't just assume you have permission - any contract like this must be opt in.

And of course, Facebook is not mandatory, it's something that you choose to be part of.

What if the terms are changed retroactively, to photos you already uploaded?

What if you're not on Facebook and someone uploads a photo of you, that then gets used in an advert?

And of course, why in hell do so many people post illegal or embarrassing items to a fairly public and insecure site?

Off-topic. There are plenty of photos I might not mind being visible to a restricted set of people (Facebook photos don't have to be "public" FYI), but would mind being in an advertising campaign. In fact, even if I was okay with a photo being entirely public, doesn't mean I want it in an advertising campaign.

(This assumes that the story is true - if it isn't, then there's nothing to worry over anyway.)

Re:Hey you Kids! Pay Attention! (1)

cetialphav (246516) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822411)

As usual with Facebook controversies, you can very easily opt out of this and never have your photo used by an advertiser.

I'm not sure that you really can opt out. The terms of service says "subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook". Facebook makes no guarantees about what privacy and application settings will be provided so anything you put up is liable (perhaps accidentally) to end up being made available with no limitations.

The real question is do you trust Facebook (and the various Facebook application providers). If you trust them, then put your whole life on there and hope they stay trustworthy even if they go bankrupt or get bought by Microsoft. I certainly would never want to try to show in court that Facebook violated those terms of service because it seems like there is a lot of wiggle room there.

Personally, I don't really have that level of trust so I only put things on there that I don't care if they abuse. I simply assume that Facebook will be money grubbing bastards and act accordingly.

Even the linked article claims they were mistaken (5, Informative)

Vetala (1543063) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822177)

Okay, first off, the article has a follow-up posted at the top of it saying they made a mistake and were corrected. But for the interest of people who would rather read comments than articles, here's what I've been telling everyone on Facebook who keeps passing around this foolishness:

First off, the claim that Facebook is allowing 3rd party advertisers to use people's photos isn't quite the case. In fact, Facebook Terms of Service (http://www.facebook.com/terms.php) state (section 10.2) "We do not give your content to advertisers."

Yes, Facebook may pair up your name and profile photo with an ad that gets sent to your friends, and yes, that can be blocked with the option mentioned in the message going around (Settings->Privacy->"News Feed and Wall"->"Facebook Ads" and select "No One" - or this link might work to get you there faster, since I'm feeling useful http://www.facebook.com/privacy/?view=feeds&tab=ads [facebook.com] )

This is not, however, 3rd party advertisers using your photo. Section 15 of the advertising guidelines for Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/ad_guidelines.php) state that an ad won't even be accepted if the advertiser is using photos for which they don't own copyright.

Now for the useful: A Facebook application that has not been authorized by you or a friend cannot access any information about you other than what's in your public search listing. This means, though, that if you have a public search listing displaying your photo, an unscrupulous advertiser could get your profile photo.

Any application you have authorized will be able to access information it requires to work. Definition of "requires to work" may vary. If you play a lot of 3rd party Facebook games, or do a lot of those quizzes going around, remember to check the Privacy Policies and Terms of Use for the application if your worried (or if you're really worried, don't do them).

Any application your friends have authorized may be able to access any information about you (on behalf of your friend) that your friend can access. To limit what the applications can see, go to Settings->Privacy->Applications and go to the Settings tab (or have another link http://www.facebook.com/privacy/?view=platform&tab=other [facebook.com] ).

http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/07/downloadsquad-and-facebook-users-get-confused-about-facebooks-advertising-policy/ [allfacebook.com] pointed out what more likely happened and downloadsquad corrected their position.

And apparently, as jdigital noted already, even the official facebook blog says that's what happened. So yeah, if you've posted stuff online, somebody may take it and abuse it.. but no, it wasn't Facebook's doing in this case. RTF....Retraction?

Re:Even the linked article claims they were mistak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822779)

That's my only major complaint about facebook's privacy settings. Many things that should be by default disabled are not, and vice versa.

Fixing it involves navigating countless obscure and convoluted menus, in a (usually) vain attempt to reach every single case.

Careful when you read them TOS's! (2, Insightful)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822189)

Sometimes the fine print has things in there that you need to watch for. I use Facebook. I like Facebook. It lets me keep up with friends who don't happen to be geeks and use it as their primary communication tool. What I don't like is not having an option on my images I upload to choose a Creative Commons license. I wish I could do that, although the TOS pretty much says once you upload to FaceBook they own it. And that in itself is pretty damn restrictive and maybe not really legal.

So please Facebook, just put all the creative commons license choices on there, and the problem is solved

Re:Careful when you read them TOS's! (2, Informative)

Z80xxc! (1111479) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822347)

Actually, facebook modified their terms recently, such that their rights to materials you upload expire if you choose to terminate your facebook account. I agree that it's still not good to grant them that right at all, even if it's not forever though.

What I tend to do is this: photos of people I know and which people will likely want to be tagged in and discuss I upload to facebook. Photos of scenery, vacation photos (without people), wildlife photography, etc, I post to Flickr. Facebook has an option on your wall settings to post a blurb to your profile when you upload photos to Flickr. People still see the link and get to see the photos, but facebook doesn't get rights they don't deserve, and you can apply a CC license.

Re:Careful when you read them TOS's! (3, Insightful)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822393)

"Actually, facebook modified their terms recently, such that their rights to materials you upload expire if you choose to terminate your facebook account. I agree that it's still not good to grant them that right at all, even if it's not forever though."

Not exactly [facebook.com] :

"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account (except to the extent your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it)."

Of whom does "others" consist? I don't know.

Re:Careful when you read them TOS's! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822737)

They're the people you shared it with. Facebook are saying they can't go to your friend's PC and delete some photo you shared with him via facebook just because you have now quit facebook.

Re:Careful when you read them TOS's! (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822879)

I think the main reason for the "We own yer shit dude", is not because they intend on printing it out and selling it at a Gallery, or using it any other way similar, but simply that if they didn't have that clause, someone would inevitably try and sue them with shit like "which server is my photo sitting on? I never gave you permission to put it on that server", or for that matter, which State the server resides in, or even country for that matter. Also depending on your settings, almost all of what your Friends can see (Images, Videos, Notes), can be seen by anyone else on Facebook, so it might be there to thwart some idiots attempt to sue over invasion of privacy because "Sue-Ann told me that, Billy Cock Smoker's dogs groomer saw a picture of me ____", etc, etc, etc.

Besides, Facebook reduces everything to the quality of shit (excluding text) anyways, so most of it would only really be "valuable" content, if they went back to 1996 with it. What good is a 604x604 JPEG, to anyone? Outside of maybe a wallet photo, it's barely SDTV quality. And whatever the hell they trans-code video to, which is still limited to that resolution. It's not worth really worth a license to either restrict, or keep-free the content, with the exception of pictures of people, but that's probably already covered under 5 or 6 different overlapping laws, contracts, "acts", clauses, and agreements.

Social Hack (1)

mindbrane (1548037) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822261)

Corporations have come to place a premium on aggregating personal information. If incorporated entities that do business with private individuals place such a premium on the individual's personal information doesn't that constitute value in a contractual sense? If personal information is of considerable value then is any one individual in a position to sell or contract h/is/er private data to a legal entity? Could a legal entity be incorporated in such a manner as to better protect the rights of any one individual to privacy and/or reimbursement for use of their private data than might a single individual? Would there be a pay off? Is it a viable business model, aggregating personal information, as a way to better ensure privacy, prohibit abuse and perhaps see some value in return? I dunno.

Waitttt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822321)

They can't legally do that, as I have used the app in Facebook that announces all of my content as Creative Commons licensed, and I chose a NON-commercial option when i did so, so Facebook is breaking the law, or the advertiser is, if my images are used.

This was true yesterday, seems to be gone now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822443)

Actually, this was being done yesterday. There was a setting to turn this off in privacy settings which has now disappeared. You can still see the tab for it by going to Privacy > Newsfeed and Wall > Facebook ads

Re:This was true yesterday, seems to be gone now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822693)

Option is still there, but you'll need to turn off AdBlock Plus temporarily to actually see it. :)

How did he come across the ad? (1)

robi5 (1261542) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822469)

Maybe he accidentally visited some dating sites... perhaps filled out some forms for curiosity... then the smart AI determined who his ideal match would be.

did everyone with a facebook account.... (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822697)

Did everyone with a facebook account not notice this months ago, or did they really think that their random facebook friends really did love using DirectMediComCo for their Viagra prescription?

what how quick they reverse course. (1)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822735)

facebook has a history of bowing to user pressures.

They will reverse this within the week.

Facebook uses pictures without permission - Hah! (1)

steelscalp (1383757) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822901)

Since there is no room for any friends here in my basement, you will never find my profile or my picture on facebook!

Advertisers need to get permission to use photos? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28822977)

Since when did facebook advertisers need anybody's permission?

Every time I log into facebook, I'm greeted by "singles" ads with photos of famous pornstars and myspace girls. Surely, the advertisers don't have the copyright holder's permission to use those photos, do they?

That stupid IQ test game (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 5 years ago | (#28822987)

They use the faces of people who are in my FRIENDS LIST, and the whole thing is a cellphone scam, where you take the dopey IQ test, then to get your results, you have to give them the number to your cellphone which then gets billed (x) dollars. So, FUCK facebook and their excuses as to how they don't give pictures to 3rd parties. they don't INSOFAR as other people should not be able to use images for billboards etc. HOWEVER: if your advert is specifically within the facebook universe, they've got you.

I turned off that option. the last thing I want are my baby pictures showing up as an advert for a swinging singles advert...

RS

http://kadindiyetzayiflamaveotokiralamar10seoogle. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28823089)

good :) very thanks

http://kadindiyetzayiflamaveotokiralamar10seoogle.beliktay.net

http://beliktay.net

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?