Many Facebook members are still angry over Facebook's revision to its terms of service earlier this month, after a weekend blog post at Consumerist detailed the changes in the terms' wording and summarized them as "We can do anything we want with your content forever."
In brief, Facebook's previous terms of service, or TOS, asserted license to reuse anything a member posted or uploaded to the site. But if the member deleted the content -- say, a photo of a friend -- Facebook's license was voided.
The new terms of service removed the latter clause. Consumerist's claim was that any content uploaded by a member, and then deleted, would still be licensed to Facebook permanently. If you upload a photo of a friend, and the friend asks you to take it down, Facebook would still be able to use the photo in promotional materials.
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg tried to explain the changes in a blog post on Monday titled "On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information." The nut of Zuckerberg's post:
When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created--one in the person's sent messages box and the other in their friend's inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear.
As of this writing, a Facebook group titled "People Against the new Terms of Service" had nearly 30,000 members, some of whom explained their fears about the modified license terms:
Let's say that 10 years down the road, I become famous. Let's also say that, despite Mark Zuckerberg's well-intentioned promise, a large multinational corporation buys out Facebook…per these new TOS, my likeness, photographs, etc, could then be used, for all eternity, to hock Sony products in any way they want.
Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt responded to the group by starting another, titled "Questions for Facebook." At this writing, 119 members including Schnitt have posted questions, concerns, or their interpretations of the legal ramifications of the wording of the terms of service.
One common misassumption seems to be that Facebook is asserting copyright on members' content. The terms only grant Facebook a license to use its members' content. Yet even that worries some members. "We want you to fix the language in the ToS so that it does NOT leave the door open to steal our content," member Shaun Duke wrote. "I hate Myspace, but at least their TOS got it right."
Update: Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input
Comments
Let us say I post a screenplay. Then one year later I share an Oscar for a script I wrote dialogue on. Not too far fetched, the script is being filmed right now. Zuckerberg may then go out and shop my script to New Line Cinema? Over my dead body.
"The terms only grant Facebook a license to use its members' content"
Uh, not only a license but "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense)" (FB ToS appended 2/4/09). Your statement is incomplete because just saying that you have a license doesn't tell me what you can do with things. Different licenses come with different rights and responsibilities. e.g. A "California State Class C driver's license" gives you a right to operate a standard motor vehicle on public roadways but not the right to violate traffic rules. And it is revocable.
The FB ToS basically states that the "license" you grant them is essentially the same as "they own your content" even if you quit, leave, try to delete, etc. etc. etc.
Copyright is different because it covers the rights of the owner of the content as originator of the license, and you are correct that FB is not asserting that they take over your copyright but, it raises an interesting question when a licensee (FB) is claiming that the terms of the license are essentially the same rights that the copyright holder holds. Who handles ultimate control here? And who has more power/capability to do something with those rights?
One would hope that the law would hold that the copyright holder's rights trump the licensee however, the language of this ToS does not allow for that possibility therefore it must be resolved and changed.
Great posts above, but I wanted to add that these gigantic companies and corporations have access to far greater legal power that I or most of us could ever hope to muster. This is a vital and often missing subject of this supposed debate. I have read in numerous articles on this subject about how these terms could not "hold up in court"; but exactly why is it that I, the individual, seem to have been overly burdened with the possibility of protecting my already Constitutional and personal rights in court? I am a writer and I know in my own conscience that I am good (when in the zone, so to speak); however I have never been published, and I cannot afford to protect my content as well as well-paid writers can. Heaven forbid that something had shown up in that ToS to point out that I was TRULY given at least some recognition in this regard. Some say it's in there, but I don't see it. And like Google, Facebook is supposed to be mainly about me, and the other users out there (not ALL about us, as FB is entitled to some profits for providing such services, but just some courtesy beyond the average corporate mechanization's would be nice).
I support businesses and corporations; but not such questionable behavior. I wonder about the legal team working for FB that wrote this. I think they could have been far more creative while still being more friendly to the individual customer/user. I am annoyed that Mark Zuckerberg (appears to) insults my intelligence and avoids the obvious fact that changes to the ToS on Facebook are arguably advantageous for marketing purposes. Whatever some may believe, use for marketing is itself an understandable thing; how the company goes about that is another story. But it seems ironic to me that by avoiding (or possibly lying about?) the effects these changes could have on marketing and sales seem to be causing more difficulty for FB then if their true standing was at least basically disclosed. Perhaps this is not quite on the mark, but it sure seems that way. And either way; I know me and probably millions of others are getting tired of these contract language tactics (Google anyone?).
I like how everyone is missing past precedence... Doesnt anyone remember when Hotmail changed their terms of service to say the had ownership and rights to anything you mailed to or from someone with a hotmail account?
All of hollywood was in arms, if a screen writer wrote a script via Hotmail, suddenly Microsoft own the rights to it and per the ToS, the right to profit from it. Ie, if a big movie was made, they could come and demand a portion of the profits. If you were in negotiations with the script, they were free to also shop it around...
People never learn, these services always put these clauses out there and yet, every few years history repeats itself...
This is good news. I was not looking forward to deactivating my account, yet I would have. This also goes to show the power of people coming together to change things. Thank your column. Oh and the power of blogs! http://IloveTheQueen.blogspot.com
Post new comment