FB TOS POS

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ProPhotoForums.com Forum Index :: Paper work, paper work, paper work!
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Leslie
Forum Regular


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 227
Location: San Diego

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:50 pm    Post subject: FB TOS POS Reply with quote

Bad bad Facebook TOS:
http://consumerist.com/5150175/facebooks-new-terms-of-service-we-can-do-anything-we-want-with-your-content-forever
_________________
Leslie Burns
Creative/Marketing Consultant
http://www.burnsautoparts.com/blog
http://facebook.com/burnsautoparts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Gordon Moat
Forum Regular


Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Posts: 259
Location: San Diego & Houston

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which is basically why my FaceBook page only contains one image and a link back to my website. Posting a portfolio there would be a bad idea.

On a different (somewhat related) note, I recently had my web guy place share links on all my website pages. This was an idea that came out of an advertising seminar, and a brief meeting with a TBWA/Chiat/Day creative. Apparently many creatives use social networking, and send things they find interesting to other creatives through social networking. So now I have made that easier for them; they find an image they like of mine, and they can send it a thumbnail and link of it to anyone they know with just a couple mouse clicks.
_________________
Ciao!

Gordon
====================
Gordon Moat Photography
http://www.gordonmoat.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Brooks Ayola
Supreme Overlord


Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 542
Location: Chatsworth (Los Angeles), CA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm... How would they get past the seemingly tricky problem of model releases in the even they actually wanted to use something of mine?
_________________
Brooks Ayola
Ayola.com
Brooks Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Gordon Moat
Forum Regular


Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Posts: 259
Location: San Diego & Houston

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I could see them getting into legal problems. Maybe it is just a matter of time before someone takes them to court. Already there are commercially (corporate) sponsored profiles and pages on FaceBook, plus a ton of musicians and music labels.
_________________
Ciao!

Gordon
====================
Gordon Moat Photography
http://www.gordonmoat.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Brooks Ayola
Supreme Overlord


Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 542
Location: Chatsworth (Los Angeles), CA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always here about these types of terms being argued about online from all of the major players, but do we know of any cases where Facebook Myspace, etc., have taken advantage of user content in bad faith?

I realize that if there hasn't it doesn't mean there won't be. I'm just curious to see if it's happened yet and what became of it.
_________________
Brooks Ayola
Ayola.com
Brooks Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Gordon Moat
Forum Regular


Joined: 24 Aug 2008
Posts: 259
Location: San Diego & Houston

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have yet to hear about specific cases yet, but this is also a new direction for these portals. If they are only promoting for the MySpace or Facebook brand (or others), then I would think many might look the other way. There might be some precedent with a few Google and Yahoo legal cases about thumbnails and image linking, though I am not sure if that could be successfully applied as precedent in a legal case.

One disturbing and complicated part could be the listing of images as assets of intellectual property. These net portals and social networking sites could claim those as assets, or in the event of bankruptcy a court might declare them as assets. Already I have seen e-mail and contact information sold off to third parties, or through liquidation sales, despite that the original TOS would have indicated the original company would maintain the data as private (iWon.com being one example).

I think it is just a matter of time until a challenge happens. When it comes, those rooms full of lawyers writing these TOSs will sound a collective Oh Sh*t!
Shocked
_________________
Ciao!

Gordon
====================
Gordon Moat Photography
http://www.gordonmoat.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Leslie
Forum Regular


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 227
Location: San Diego

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It seems that FB *may* be reworking the wording in the near future. The hullabaloo from Consumerist has gotten their attention and though as worded now the terms are still a POS, they may be corrected soon:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10165190-2.html

Let's hope so. Keep up the stink until then! Smile

-Leslie
_________________
Leslie Burns
Creative/Marketing Consultant
http://www.burnsautoparts.com/blog
http://facebook.com/burnsautoparts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Tyler Mallory
Forum Regular


Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 69
Location: Chicago

PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brooks Ayola wrote:
I always here about these types of terms being argued about online from all of the major players, but do we know of any cases where Facebook Myspace, etc., have taken advantage of user content in bad faith?

I realize that if there hasn't it doesn't mean there won't be. I'm just curious to see if it's happened yet and what became of it.


Virgin Mobile got popped for it a little while back. Photo of a minor from Flickr. That's why the continuing use of this type of ramrod licensing continues to surprise me. Most corporate activities toe a pretty good line about avoiding liability, but these social networking content licenses seem to assume a foolish level of near immunity. They allow minors to be members. Minors can't enter into legal contracts, so if they use a picture uploaded by a minor, their entire premise of having received a grant of license is out the window. I guess it's like every other thing corporate. They are just going to have to get sued often enough that it matters.
_________________
Chicago Photographer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mark Farrell
Forum Regular


Joined: 02 Jan 2009
Posts: 26
Location: Massachusetts, USA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

FB may have backed off for a while.....
http://www.switched.com/2009/02/18/facebook-admits-defeat-retracts-terms-of-service/?icid=200100397x1219296388x1201275556
_________________
Mark Farrell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ProPhotoForums.com Forum Index :: Paper work, paper work, paper work! All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Charcoal2 Theme © Zarron Media