http://www.thestandard.com/node/126661/comments comments feed. en http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content <!--paging_filter--><p><!--paging_filter--> <p><!--paging_filter--> </p> <p>This morning, I reported on Facebook's <a href="/news/2009/02/16/facebook-claims-permanent-rights-user-content">new terms of service</a>, which appears to assert permanent rights to any content that users create or upload, even after they delete it from the site. This afternoon, a Facebook spokesman emailed a response that I'll post in its entirety:</p> <blockquote><p>We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.  The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site.  That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend).  Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.  So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info &quot;in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.&quot;  Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail.  For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.</p> <p>One of the most important goals of the new Terms was to be more open to users by being more clear about how their data was handled.  We certainly did not — and did not intend — to create any new right or interest for Facebook in users’ data by issuing the new Terms.  None of the news or blog reports at the time we announced them on February 4 suggested any confusion or misunderstanding. </p> </p></blockquote> <p>Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a similar message on <a href="http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=54434097130">the company's blog</a>. </p> <p>The issue is currently Twitter's <a href="http://search.twitter.com/search?q=facebook+tos">top topic</a>. Maybe Facebook should rewrite the statement into 140 characters?</p> <p><span style="font-weight: bold" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Update 1: </span></span><a href="/news/2009/02/17/tk-facebook"><span style="font-style: italic" class="Apple-style-span">Facebook TOS protest spreads, Zuckerberg responds</span></a></p> <p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Update 2</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">: </span><a href="/news/2009/02/18/facebook-caves-members-terms-service"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic">Facebook reverts to old terms, promises to craft new TOS with user input</span></a></p> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/02/16/facebook-we-have-never-claimed-ownership-members-content#comments co:Facebook Standards &amp; Legal The Industry Standard Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:42:57 -0500 Paul Boutin 126661 at http://www.thestandard.com