Image for art courtesy of Facebook.com
Rest easy, Cacophoners; I just removed the “Share on Facebook” option from the “Share This” widget that appears beneath every post.
For those who don’t know, Facebook changed its Terms of Service last week, asserting a perpetual claim to use however it wishes certain content that you post on FB or that is shared on their network via a hosted “Share on Facebook” button. A similar policy was in place prior to the change in terms on February 4, but Facebook’s claims to your content used to expired when you deleted items or deleted your account. That option ultimately gave users control over their content.
No longer. Here’s the key passage from the new ToS:
You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.
Here’s the clause that was removed:
You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
This has produced no shortage of outrage, as well as a totally inadequate response from FB honcho Mark Zuckerberg that essentially asserts the ToS does not reflect Facebook’s true feelings about user generated content (to which friend of the Institute Matt Gold responds: “What matters is what they *do* with user info, not how they “think” about it!”).
Amanda French of NYU posted a really helpful run down of various ToS’s on other user generated content web sites, which highlights just how off-base and egregious Facebook’s claims are. Boone B. Gorges of Queens College wonders about the pedagogical ramifications of this change, and also about what Zuckerberg’s response teaches us about the concept of “sharing” in the digital age.
Ultimately, I hope Facebook sees the error of its ways, because it provides a unique, valuable, and often elegant service. I have a network on FB which is almost entirely separate and serves a different purpose for me than my networks on Twitter, Ning, LinkedIn, or BuddyPress; I’d hate to see that diminished. At the same, anyone who blogs on Facebook’s blog utility should think long and hard before continuing. Photographers who share their photos through Facebook should reconsider, or at least start watermarking the hell out the images they share. Musicians shouldn’t upload MP3s of their compositions. Faculty should reconsider any educational uses of Facebook. Our students should be informed (though that’s nothing new). Web masters should zap those “Share on Facebook” buttons from their sites (for clarification, if you post a link directly into Facebook, the claim doesn’t apply). And those of us who have posted pictures of our kids on Facebook so that cousins abroad and childhood friends can follow their growth should be prepared to see those images used without our notification or permission.
I saw this and was immediately thinking, hey wait, I run a feed of my activity in other places through Facebook. Well, I killed that yesterday. Thing is, I really don;t spend much time on Facebook, nd I really agree with Matt’s point that it is their proprietary view of all their users content which makes the service so questionable in my mind. That said, I connect with all the people who don;t undestand the internet there, so it is still valuable
Just no more links to my work goes there anymore, and I imagine that service will prove—with steps like these—that it will be the first services to have 100s of milliosn of users that can’t make a real buck off it. Which I think is kinda funny.
Luke, what about this phrase: “(i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings“? If I have my Facebook settings set to only share stuff with my Friends, doesn’t that override Facebook’s right to use my material any old way they choose? If not, can you explain why not?
Thanks, Jim. See, I’m not sure I have a problem with FB using content it gathers about me through my use to tailor advertising (as was reported here) that appears in my sidebar. I mean, it’s creepy in the way that Google Ads are creepy. But as long as I can rationalize some semblance of privacy, and as long as the ads aren’t too intrusive, I can deal with it as the cost of using the service (is Twitter taking baby steps towards exploring something similar?).
But, the new ToS is an entirely different question altogether.
I know your point about users who “don’t understand the Internet” is tongue in cheek; but FB is valuable to me precisely because it allows me to talk with people who aren’t in fields or professions or lives that lead them to the cutting edge of communicative technology, or who have no desire or time to maintain multiple accounts across the webs.
And also, you know, to play Scrabble.
@Wendy: good catch, and thanks for the clarification. FB’s privacy settings are a bit difficult to use and manage, but that does seem to grant you a certain level of protection. So maybe my comment about kids photos was a little extreme (I only share images of my kid with friends). I think the overarching objection still stands– my image, my personal information, and, they assert, anything that was streamed through Facebook would be theirs to use for commercial purposes just by virute of my having an account. Uncool.
Here is how to watermark your pictures.
Windows Software
http://www.picture-shark.com/watermark_freeware_image_protect_gallery_download.htm
http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/
Mac Software
http://www.gimp.org/macintosh/
http://www.ehow.com/how_2176726_watermark-digital-art-using-gimp.html
This was a very informative post.
I was somewhat amused to learn about this because what is going on is awfully familiar with what happened about a year ago in the social networking site in Japan that I am a long-time member of (called mixi). They modified their ToS to make it sound like they claim ownership of everything we post and write in the site, people noticed and made a fuss, they promptly published a release to ‘clarify’ (‘No, we do not claim ownership of written materials and images you upload!’) but the sense of distrust towards them is still with us somewhat.
I have enjoyed many benefits of being part of such SNS (it help me reconnect with old friends and also meet with new great ones) and I think Facebook still continues to be a convenient for me to stay in touch with friends all over the world, but a situation like this is a good reminder for me that no matter what your ‘privacy settings’ are, we want to watch out for yourself in our online activities.
Update: in response to the complaints, Facebook has reverted to its old ToS as it tries to figure out how to move forward.
Click to see Zuckerberg’s post.
This is pissing me off. Where are the 2010 guidelines; I can’t find them anywhere on the web. Who owns what these beautiful artists share? Please tell me!!
Haha I laughed so hard at the ‘Facebook owns your stuff’ image. It’s so true though, and so many people don’t know it despite the hugh traffic that site has.