Facebook Licensing of User Content

[lat]

Facebook has said it is not usurping users' content despite changing service terms to claim "perpetual worldwide license" to anything posted at the social-networking website.Changes to terms of service were necessary to keep in step with how people share pictures, comments and other information in the popular online community, according to Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. ...

http://www2.canada.com/news/world/fa...tml?id=1298224


I found the above article interesting, and it resonates somewhat with the privacy / anonymity discussions that have been taking place on c2e recently.


I personally am not too concerned about the rewording of the facebook license, since they mention that your content is "...subject only to your privacy settings...". So, you still can specify that only your friends can have access to your content, and they must adhere to your privacy requirements. At least, that's how I read it... Besides, anything you post on the internet should not be something you want kept private! Facebook is a social networking and user content sharing site. Why share something that you don't want to have seen!

Here is a link to the facebook TOU:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gi...rms.php?ref=pf


Look under the sub-heading "Licenses" for the juicy part...


What do you all think?

[nobleea]

they could probably get rid of the perpetual worldwide license bit, but otherwise i don't think it means much. i mean how many photos are uploaded to the site every day? a million? i don't think any of the photos i've uploaded would be of much use to anyone.

though really, you should be able to permanently delete any material that was uploaded before the TOS changed.

[DebraW]

Non-issue for me.

I do not post anything on facebook (or C2E) that I would not say or share in person. That is the comfort of consistency.

[MylesC]

In terms of digital intellectual property issues, that little line is HUGE.

Whether you want to share something or not is certainly a security issue, but I thing the bigger issue swings back to the IP matter. You post something, you're agreeing that you no longer hold any license over your information.

Yes, on the top of the matter are logical reasons as to why the change was made. When you cut down into the matter, the wording in the TOU opens a lot of doors. Yes, there is basic information such as email, phone, etc, that you place on Facebook and risk getting shared. However, what about content that YOU are the creator of - ie. photos. The TOU says you give up all rights and ownership for everything you post.

[lat]

Originally Posted by MylesC

In terms of digital intellectual property issues, that little line is HUGE.

Whether you want to share something or not is certainly a security issue, but I thing the bigger issue swings back to the IP matter. You post something, you're agreeing that you no longer hold any license over your information.

Yes, on the top of the matter are logical reasons as to why the change was made. When you cut down into the matter, the wording in the TOU opens a lot of doors. Yes, there is basic information such as email, phone, etc, that you place on Facebook and risk getting shared. However, what about content that YOU are the creator of - ie. photos. The TOU says you give up all rights and ownership for everything you post.

Agreed, but that line is in the same sentence where they state it is "subject only to your privacy settings". I may be naive, but I would think (hope!) that means what it says, and if you throttle back on your privacy settings within facebook, they would be required to treat the content consistently for any other potential uses they may have for it...

[etownboarder]

Do I retain the copyright and other legal rights to material I upload to Facebook?

Yes, you retain the copyright to your content. When you upload your content, you grant us a license to use and display that content.


Taken from: http://www.facebook.com/help.php?page=439

[lat]

^You still own the content, but you grant facebook the right to do anything they want with that content, unless you state otherwise via your privacy settings.... unless my interpretation is out to lunch...

[Susan@eTalk]

I have resisted the temptation to join Facebook, I just don't like the concept.

[lat]

Update on Terms

by Mark Zuckerberg Yesterday at 11:17pm

A couple of weeks ago, we revised our terms of use hoping to clarify some parts for our users. Over the past couple of days, we received a lot of questions and comments about the changes and what they mean for people and their information. Based on this feedback, we have decided to return to our previous terms of use while we resolve the issues that people have raised. ...

http://blog.facebook.com/

Interesting... Not surprising that they bowed to pressure... I heard that a lot of people were leaving facebook over this.

[edmontonenthusiast]

Thank God I'm not on Facebook. I don't need to worry about any of this.

[etownboarder]

I'm on Facebook, and I don't worry about any of it... it's just not that big of a deal.

[lat]

A lot of people are getting all upset about this, and of course the media are having fun with it, but it isn't a huge problem, I don't think...

[MylesC]

In the circles of electronic content rights, etc, etc, etc, etc....

It has the potential to be a massive problem.

[MJ]

I personally don't understand the uproar. Yesterday I felt this was pure sensationalism from the media. I even heard a couple yahoos on the radio babbling how hidden the Terms of use are to find on facebook. I had to send an angry email over that one -- it is pretty easy to look at the footer (which appears on ANY facebook page) and ponder to yourself where the link titled Terms will take you!

In fact as I scrolled up and down on this very page to submit these thoughts, I'm not sure I can find the c2e Terms so easy! That is unless everything I need to know resides within the FAQ area.

As soon as I hit that "Post Quick Reply" button, the owners of c2e will own this content. If I added a picture, same deal. Why do you figure admins wrap your knuckles when you paste an entire article? They own the site, they own the content and are responsible for each and every member that places more content here.

Maybe I'm missing something where I should seek out the panic button? I'm not a lawyer after all, but thought this was fairly straight-forward.

[RTA]

Anyone who posts content on the Internet who need to be aware of the rights implications (writers, photographers, artists, etc.) should always, always be aware of the terms, conditions, and use policies of any site they post their content to, no exception.

Facebook has always had policies in place that allow them certain rights to user-posted content, until that content is explicitly removed by the user. As such, anyone concerned with retaining the exclusive rights to their photos, writings, etc. should have always kept them off Facebook entirely.

As far as I could tell, the new policies weren't much different than the existing one.

[lat]

From facebook:

...
Beginning today, we are giving you a greater opportunity to voice your opinion over how Facebook is governed. We're starting this off by publishing two new documents for your review and comment. The first is the Facebook Principles, which defines your rights and will serve as the guiding framework behind any policy we'll consider—or the reason we won't consider others. The second document is the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which will replace the existing Terms of Use. With both documents, we tried hard to simplify the language so you have a clear understanding of how Facebook will be run. We've created separate groups for each document so you can read them and provide comments and feedback. You can find the Facebook Principles here and the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities here. Before these new proposals go into effect, you'll also have the ability to vote for or against proposed changes.
...

http://blog.facebook.com/

hmm... transparency is a good thing... we'll see if they walk the talk.

[lat]

I'm wondering if there is a benefit to having a set of principles laid out for c2e, where the rules and guidelines that currently exist can be understood within the context of our principles...

[DebraW]

Originally Posted by lat

I'm wondering if there is a benefit to having a set of principles laid out for c2e, where the rules and guidelines that currently exist can be understood within the context of our principles...

Me = great idea.
Likelihood of happening = goose egg.

[lat]

Originally Posted by DebraW

Me = lol.

ok... thanks for that!

[MJ]

Originally Posted by lat

I'm wondering if there is a benefit to having a set of principles laid out for c2e, where the rules and guidelines that currently exist can be understood within the context of our principles...

Aren't there already a work-in-progress Terms of Service here?

[lat]

Originally Posted by MJ

Aren't there already a work-in-progress Terms of Service here?

The principles wouldn't be a ToS document, it would be something like the example from facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gi...066&topic=7960

1. Freedom to Share and Connect

People should have the freedom to share whatever information they want, in any medium and any format, and have the right to connect online with anyone – any person, organization or service – as long as they both consent to the connection.

2. Ownership and Control of Information

People should own their information. They should have the freedom to share it with anyone they want and take it with them anywhere they want, including removing it from the Facebook Service. People should have the freedom to decide with whom they will share their information, and to set privacy controls to protect those choices. Those controls, however, are not capable of limiting how those who have received information may use it, particularly outside the Facebook Service.

3. Free Flow of Information

People should have the freedom to access all of the information made available to them by others. People should also have practical tools that make it easy, quick, and efficient to share and access this information.

4. Fundamental Equality

Every Person – whether individual, advertiser, developer, organization, or other entity – should have representation and access to distribution and information within the Facebook Service, regardless of the Person’s primary activity. There should be a single set of principles, rights, and responsibilities that should apply to all People using the Facebook Service.

5. Social Value

People should have the freedom to build trust and reputation through their identity and connections, and should not have their presence on the Facebook Service removed for reasons other than those described in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.

6. Open Platforms and Standards

People should have programmatic interfaces for sharing and accessing the information available to them. The specifications for these interfaces should be published and made available and accessible to everyone.

7. Fundamental Service

People should be able to use Facebook for free to establish a presence, connect with others, and share information with them. Every Person should be able to use the Facebook Service regardless of his or her level of participation or contribution.

8. Common Welfare

The rights and responsibilities of Facebook and the People that use it should be described in a Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which should not be inconsistent with these Principles.

9. Transparent Process

Facebook should publicly make available information about its purpose, plans, policies, and operations. Facebook should have a town hall process of notice and comment and a system of voting to encourage input and discourse on amendments to these Principles or to the Rights and Responsibilities.

10. One World

The Facebook Service should transcend geographic and national boundaries and be available to everyone in the world.

The principles would provide a context for the ToS document (plus any other guidelines) to have more meaning...

Again, not sure if this is needed here, but its interesting to draw parallels between what's currently happening in facebook and the discussions c2e has had recently about privacy, anonymity and member conduct...

[MJ]

With consideration 99% of users here hide behind anonymity and 99% of users on facebook do not, there is a much different scope. I mean no one is posting pictures of any embarrassing pictures of you from the kegger last weekend on c2e!

But taking that list and reading through it, I must say that 10 point list that to me is super super wordy. I'm not a lawyer after all, but with only subtle connotative differences between many of the 10 points, it's obvious facebook has had some legal advice to get that all up.

A couple relative points to me:

Point 2 is interesting. I have seen the rare request a member puts to a mod of a forum to have all their posts removed. Generally this is the end of their time on the site and who knows what crazy times lead to such a decision. Many times for the moderation team, this request is either a pain in the derriere, not possible or just not going to happen. I know most default settings of the popular forum software do not give the user ability to remove their posts, and even editing posts generally has a time-limit.

Point 4 could never work here. I interpret this that anyone has the right to post whatever they please. If I am distributing information of my cheapo online shoe store in China, it is in my right to post it here. I think that one really emphasizes we're talking two different medium.

[lat]

^ I totally agree that fb and c2e are very different animals. The parallel I was trying to draw is the fact that they are both online forums and they both are going through discussions on how the forum should be run. Both fb and c2e are debating what the responsibilities and expectations are for both the mods and the members. In that light, I thought that a set of guiding principles may have some value. Again, the facebook principles are just an example, since they are specific to a different animal. None of the points in the fb principles document should necessarily be applied to c2e...

[kcantor]

Originally Posted by lat

I'm wondering if there is a benefit to having a set of principles laid out for c2e, where the rules and guidelines that currently exist can be understood within the context of our principles...

lat, i'm not sure i understand your query... if c2e provided "a set of principles", would that not be "theirs" as owners of the site and not "ours" as their guests? as for "our" principles, we all have them and they should govern everything we do including what we post and where.

Originally Posted by MJ

With consideration 99% of users here hide behind anonymity and 99% of users on facebook do not, there is a much different scope. I mean no one is posting pictures of any embarrassing pictures of you from the kegger last weekend on c2e!

But taking that list and reading through it, I must say that 10 point list that to me is super super wordy. I'm not a lawyer after all, but with only subtle connotative differences between many of the 10 points, it's obvious facebook has had some legal advice to get that all up.

A couple relative points to me:

Point 2 is interesting. I have seen the rare request a member puts to a mod of a forum to have all their posts removed. Generally this is the end of their time on the site and who knows what crazy times lead to such a decision. Many times for the moderation team, this request is either a pain in the derriere, not possible or just not going to happen. I know most default settings of the popular forum software do not give the user ability to remove their posts, and even editing posts generally has a time-limit.

...

i smiled reading your use of the words "hide behind" in your opening sentence - "99% of users here hide behind anonymity and 99% of users on facebook do not" - but moving past that i was also intrigued by some of the unrealistic expectations that surround point 2. no-one is forced to post on c2e anymore than we are forced to write a letter to the editor or forced to speak to the person beside you on the bus. but once we make that choice for ourselves, it is done and it exists and you have no right or ability to take it back. an opportunity to amend or clarify or edit perhaps, but not to "take it back" - that's just a schoolyard retort that we all know is impossible to comply with.

i also think that there is a difference between thoughts and things that can be difficult to ascertain and that sometimes clouds discussions such as these. if i "own" an image and decide to show it to others, that is not the same as giving them a copy of that image. if a site says "you can show your images here and remove them when you choose and others may look at them but not copy or save them", that is one thing even though it is probably impossible to monitor. if a site says "you can post your images here but once you do so others will be able to copy and save them" you have a choice to make before posting. i am not sure you can claim the same kind of "ownership" of ideas and thoughts and opinions in the same manner or fashion or expect the same kinds of options with them. and once you say something that has been heard by others or published something that has been read by others and responded to by others, without that same kind of ownership one should not expect the same kinds of options. if you don't want it "out there" and don't want to be responsible for it, don't say it and don't post it. as for the anonymity part, it's interesting that with "physical images", there can be no anonymous ownership (you can't anonymously own anything) but in some quarters there appears to be a desire or expectation to do exactly that with something "non-physical"...

[lat]

Originally Posted by kcantor

lat, i'm not sure i understand your query... if c2e provided "a set of principles", would that not be "theirs" as owners of the site and not "ours" as their guests? as for "our" principles, we all have them and they should govern everything we do including what we post and where.

Good question... here is what fb is doing:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?ui...id=54964476066

...
We welcome any constructive comments regarding our proposed Principles. Comments will be accepted here for thirty days following this publication. The comment period will close at 12:01 am PDT on March 29.

After the comment period ends, we will review and consider the comments posted here. We will then republish the Principles, incorporating any changes we have made. We will also provide a summary of the most common and significant comments we received, including our response to those comments where appropriate.
...

So, they are providing an opportunity for people to "comment" on the principles, but fb would still have control over them.

If c2e were to adopt a set of principles, I personally would like to see input from the user community on what those principles would be, from the word go. How that input is obtained and the decision-making process around which principles are adopted are things that would need to be determined...