If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7452490


(Gizmodo)   Facebook will always own you, citizen   (gizmodo.com) divider line 35
    More: Asinine, Facebook  
•       •       •

3074 clicks; Favorite

35 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-26 08:16:39 PM
I really have trouble worrying over the fact that Facebook "owns" the picture I put up of me and a friend, or the picture of London burning in the great riots of a few weeks ago. No one cares... what are they gonna do? Sue me because they're on Facebook? Big whoop, try, I don't care, no one cares.
 
2012-11-26 08:27:43 PM
Facebook owns the photos, videos, and statuses you upload...

In short: if you upload a photo, Facebook is 100%, completely allowed to use it (or sell it) until you delete that photo or delete your account.


Doesn't sound like they "own" them to me. Sounds like they lease them while you host them on facebook servers.

Little does facebook know, I don't own the copyright on any of my pictures that I post. I transferred that ownership to "Impaler Inc. LLC" long ago.

I'm in copyright violation with all the photos I post, and I do not have the right to transfer ownership, even temporarily, to any 3rd party such as facebook.
 
2012-11-26 09:02:57 PM
Oh noes Facebook owns pictures of some Whales and random ocean pics I took when in Alaska early this year! Halp! Conservatives save me from having my freadums violated!
 
2012-11-26 09:07:05 PM

Creoena: Oh noes Facebook owns pictures of some Whales and random ocean pics I took when in Alaska early this year! Halp! Conservatives save me from having my freadums violated!


I gn0!! D00d the liburlz our attaxing muh freedom! Know won fux wit the 9gag pickturez i m@de!!
 
2012-11-26 09:09:02 PM
all your face are belong to us
 
2012-11-26 09:11:41 PM
All of this "privacy" talk about Facebook and Google is getting annoying.

Oh no, they KNOW things about you! What ever are you going to do?

I'm far more worried about the government, which, by the way, was doing an better job of tracking your whereabouts before the Internet than Google and Facebook do now. They don't need those two things to track you. It might make things a little easier, but the NSA, FBI, and CIA can track you if they want to, regardless of the information web companies have.
 
2012-11-26 09:16:26 PM
What is Facebook?

/oblig
 
2012-11-26 09:36:34 PM
Well then it's a good thing you aren't required by law to have a Facebook account then, isn't it?
 
2012-11-26 09:37:37 PM
the way i look at is that i trade my privacy for free stuff. its no different than when i was in college filling out surveys in bars in exchange for a free jager hat, or a lighter or something. if i was worried about my privacy i am welcome to just say no
 
2012-11-26 09:40:23 PM
That's why I am Gene Masseth on Facebook.
 
2012-11-26 09:40:33 PM
That doesn't mean Facebook owns your pictures. It just means you gave them a nonexclusive license to your pictures. You still have ultimate control over your pictures elsewhere (and if you don't want to revoke your license to facebook, just delete it from facebook).

Frankly, without giving Facebook a nonexclusive license to your pictures and posts, then Facebook would not be able to work since Facebook wouldn't be able to display that picture or your post to your friends. Although the transferable and sublicenseable aspects are kind of a dick thing to have.
 
2012-11-26 09:42:01 PM
i1079.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-26 09:43:49 PM
I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, graphics, comics, black velvet paintings, funny cat photos, videos, drunken ramblings and criminal admissions. (as a result of the Berner Convention). For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!

By the present communiqué, I notify Fark that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Fark's direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).
 
2012-11-26 09:48:03 PM
 
2012-11-26 09:49:21 PM
So I could start a band and post everything on facebook, and what's his face that owns facebook could claim all the songs and videos as his own and sell the songs and videos?
 
2012-11-26 09:51:21 PM
Is there ANYTHING on Facebook that's worth copyrighting?
 
2012-11-26 09:51:28 PM
i.qkme.me

Most of my pics are boring and none of my freinds(or me for that matter) could ever sell clothing or any form of merchandise with our looks.
 
2012-11-26 09:51:57 PM
FB's TOS says you own your content and they can use it subject to your privacy settings, until you delete it. How is this different than what anybody wants?
 
2012-11-26 09:53:45 PM

RexTalionis: Frankly, without giving Facebook a nonexclusive license to your pictures and posts, then Facebook would not be able to work since Facebook wouldn't be able to display that picture or your post to your friends. Although the transferable and sublicenseable aspects are kind of a dick thing to have.


^this

TFA makes a suggestion that is less annoying than the vapid posting of the copyright, but ultimately, FB asserts what is will and the users agreed to it.

The Farktography community had a similar discussion when we started taking the contests ... well, not seriously but we wanted to know who owned what. Fark's TOS is essentially the same, but doesn't assert transference and sub license rights, IIRC.

The 'best' of these licenses usually contain verbiage that says that the rights only apply when actually providing the Service, whatever that happens to be (e.g. hosting the content).

/IANAL
 
2012-11-26 09:59:20 PM

RexTalionis: Although the transferable and sublicenseable aspects are kind of a dick thing to have.


Although they can't do much with it, if one can remove their right to the pictures by deleting them.
 
2012-11-26 10:09:24 PM

Creoena: Oh noes Facebook owns pictures of some Whales and random ocean pics I took when in Alaska early this year! Halp! Conservatives save me from having my freadums violated!


Know how I know you didn't RTFA? Or, if you did, that you didn't comprehend TFA?
 
2012-11-26 10:23:50 PM
So if I have the rights to some photos but the the rights are non transferable per the original photos and I post them to facebook and then facebook uses that... how are they not by their actions breaking a third party contract? (for which they can in theory be sued to high heaven)
 
2012-11-26 10:46:45 PM
www.ethannonsequitur.com
 
2012-11-26 11:27:25 PM

schnee: RexTalionis: Frankly, without giving Facebook a nonexclusive license to your pictures and posts, then Facebook would not be able to work since Facebook wouldn't be able to display that picture or your post to your friends. Although the transferable and sublicenseable aspects are kind of a dick thing to have.

^this

TFA makes a suggestion that is less annoying than the vapid posting of the copyright, but ultimately, FB asserts what is will and the users agreed to it.

The Farktography community had a similar discussion when we started taking the contests ... well, not seriously but we wanted to know who owned what. Fark's TOS is essentially the same, but doesn't assert transference and sub license rights, IIRC.

The 'best' of these licenses usually contain verbiage that says that the rights only apply when actually providing the Service, whatever that happens to be (e.g. hosting the content).

/IANAL


That's the reason I've kept hosting photos on Picasa instead of Flickr. Until late in Flickr's life they did require sub-license and did not restrict it to only providing their service; Picasa left all rights alone except for what they needed to host the pictures.

Facebook might be serious in not using the photos and videos they host. They'd run into a ton of problems if they ever sell any of my photos, I don't have a model release and I didn't claim to have a model release when I clicked "I Agree". Right to publicity varies by state, and it would be a huge problem for them the first time they lost a case like that.
 
2012-11-26 11:39:06 PM
I stopped using Facebook awhile back but--how do I actually DELETE my account? Serious quesiton please and thank you.
 
2012-11-26 11:51:21 PM

Zul the Magnificent: I stopped using Facebook awhile back but--how do I actually DELETE my account? Serious quesiton please and thank you.


Never mind. Google is my friend.
 
2012-11-26 11:54:37 PM

Zul the Magnificent: Google is my friend.


Nah, Google is not your friend either. They're just as bad as facebook, except they require you to use your real name.
 
2012-11-27 12:48:39 AM

Slaxl: I really have trouble worrying over the fact that Facebook "owns" the picture I put up of me and a friend, or the picture of London burning in the great riots of a few weeks ago. No one cares... what are they gonna do? Sue me because they're on Facebook? Big whoop, try, I don't care, no one cares.


Until they sell that pic of London to a newspaper and *they* pocket the money.
 
2012-11-27 01:07:50 AM
I'm not a photographer, so any picture I upload is basically worthless. The whole point of Facebook is to show off your photo collection, right? Then I can say to my friends, "Does your city have a restaurant that looks like a giant orange? Huh, does it? Does it have an ice restaurant?"

I'd never put anything serious on Facebook.

With the way things are going these days, it's worth having an account as a sort of supplemental resume, which allows me to show off my clean living and my lack of overt signs of insanity.
 
2012-11-27 02:28:31 AM
I like the idea of deliberately posting only things that are breaches of copyright to facebook. Then if they republish/exploit they are, no matter how much they would squeal that they are not, guilty as hell of infringment.
 
2012-11-27 03:02:58 AM

impaler: Doesn't sound like they "own" them to me. Sounds like they lease them while you host them on facebook servers.


Alright, joking aside you are correct about this. However it is also correct to say that Facebook never outright deletes anything so any picture uploaded is, technically, hosted on FB until the day FB dies.

Which could present a problem further down the line... who knows. Having had several photos I own the rights too go 'walkies' it's great fun playing whack-a-mole with all the damn image hosting sites when they pop up. Them being put on FB and thus there (if not visible) forever does pose a concern to me I admit.

/By fun I mean "complete and utter ball ache"
 
2012-11-27 03:41:03 AM

HotWingAgenda: Zul the Magnificent: Google is my friend.

Nah, Google is not your friend either. They're just as bad as facebook, except they require you to use your real name.


The hell they do. They certainly don't have my real name.
 
2012-11-27 04:39:46 AM
Trust the Facebook. The Facebook is your friend.

NO ONE IS SCREAMING. YOU ARE IN ERROR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

/Stay Alert! Trust No One! Keep Your Laser Handy!
 
2012-11-27 04:58:43 AM

Trollin4Colon: HotWingAgenda: Zul the Magnificent:

The hell they do. They certainly don't have my real name.


Same here, only an idiot would put themselves online with their real name, let alone put photos of themselves online.
 
2012-11-27 05:20:09 AM
LOL Facebook, why would anyone use facebook, you'd have to have friends or family of some sort.


:(
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report