RSS
STORE
UPDATE: Here's a PR storm that happened very fast. On Sunday, the Consumerist blog wrote about Facebook's terms of service change. Monday it spread across the blogosphere. By late Monday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg issued a statement. He attempted to explain the change in service and admited the company needs to improve its communications. This PR Junkie post was written as the story unfolded Monday.
Funny thing, privacy. When the Bush administration wanted to randomly tap phones Americans cried foul. “You’re invading our privacy!” We proudly declared.
Yet every day hundreds of millions of people worldwide voluntarily share their private information with Facebook. And now Facebook has changed its terms of service.
Have you heard about these changes that took place February 4?
The new terms of service say Facebook now owns everything you post to the site, which it can use commercially— and “sublicense” to third-party vendors—even after you delete your account.
Here’s what it says:
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. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses.
And this …
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.
Despite an outcry from the blogosphere and coverage in the mainstream media, Facebook's PR team was apparently caught off-guard. On Monday, they told a Tribune reporter they were preparing a response.
Again, Facebook made this change to its terms of service February 4 and two weeks later the PR team is still preparing a response. Someone should be fired.
ZDNet blogger Jennifer Leggio wrote on Twitter Monday: "Facebook PR team seems bitter about the [terms of service] hubbub. An email I got: 'For those of you who aren't working (like we were supposed to be)' heh."
Bloggers have suggested this is a coup on Facebook’s part to finally start making serious bucks on the social network that counts 300 million members. Sadly, the tone among bloggers is, “Oh well, Facebook outsmarted us. But we’ll continue posting our personal information and pictures to the site.”
Thousands of members have launched a protest—on Facebook, a People Against the new Terms of Service group. Instead, maybe it’s time to pull the plug on your account. Remember, only you can prevent Facebook from peddling your information to the highest bidder.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Good list, tho a bit US-centric. The world is full of unmitigated PR gaffes; Renault's F1 race fixing; UK PM Gordon Brow...
Comments (11)
It makes no sense that Facebook would risk messing up a good thing by edging in on people's intellectual property. They had people's trust and then they go and risk losing it; not smart.
Posted by coffee | February 22, 2009 3:10 AM
Posted on February 22, 2009 03:10
Don't they already make money from advertising? If not, wouldn't that be a more viable option to make money? Also, if they insist on using personal information, which is taking horrible advantage of people who have participated in good faith, they should only be able to use the information uploaded after the new policy goes into effect.
Posted by Geryl Rose | February 18, 2009 11:15 AM
Posted on February 18, 2009 11:15
The interesting fact here is that a lot of people go to the web to show off, a lot of people go to facebook to meet with friends but sometimes also to express themselves more freely without anyone at close distance.
The web grants this, you can become a public figure without being very close to your public.
What will happen to pictures, poems, notes, 25 random things it's not really the question, the real issue is that now facebook like GM will probably have to pay for the disk space, energy and other resources they are using and they are trying to find a way to pay for all that cost.
Íf we want to have a free place to post our photos, ideas, chat, keep in touch maybe this is a relatively inexpensive price for that.
If we are not professional photographers, but we have taken some nice pictures, which we will never sell why they can't be published around the globe?
Specially if they come with a notice that this picture comes from facebook/userid or name, why not?
If we want exposure there is no better way to get us cover page, exposure, etc...
People have to remember that there is no free lunch so maybe the price tag for free space would be sharing the content with the world.
Now regarding the change in the term, I really would like to know if on the millions of facebook members there aren't at least a few hundreds Ivy league top lawyers to check this contract change.
Posted by Luiz Brandao | February 17, 2009 9:12 PM
Posted on February 17, 2009 21:12
There's a very cogent and interesting explanation of what people really should be concerned about regarding this debate on ZDnet. Here's the link:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=12959&tag=nl.e539
Posted by Mary Boone | February 17, 2009 7:58 PM
Posted on February 17, 2009 19:58
It seems like the way around, at least for photos and videos, is to put some sort of a digital watermark on everything you care about that goes up on Facebook. That, way Facebook can have it, but it does them no good. You could also password protect any files.
This is a bad policy by Facebook. It may help other social networks, which could be a good thing.
Posted by Brian | February 17, 2009 6:28 PM
Posted on February 17, 2009 18:28
Sounds mighty presumptious on Facebook's part. I hope users stand up to them.
What about the photos of people's children? Many of my friends who are parents post their children's photos and only allow access to a few of their friends in order to protect their children.
What is the point of blocking or setting privacy settings if Facebook is going to do whatever they want with your stuff anyway?
In the meantime, I will promptly be removing the photos of me from college with my bad hair and odd fashion decisions.
Posted by LLL | February 17, 2009 1:51 PM
Posted on February 17, 2009 13:51
Photos (which fall under the user content category) that you as an account holder post to your account, remain your property, not the property of Facebook. However, facebook retains the right to allow third parties access to those photos through applications that YOU allow for.
When you add an application, you agree to allow that application the right to your personal information.
It discuss' this topic more in depth in the "terms of service" which i copied below...
Ownership; Proprietary Rights
Except for User Content and Applications/Connect Sites, all materials, content and trademarks on the Facebook Service are the property of Facebook and/or its licensors and are protected by all relevant IP laws and other proprietary rights (including copyright, trademark, trade dress and patent laws) and any other applicable laws. Without limiting the foregoing, FACEBOOK, the F LOGO, FB, FACE, POKE, THE WALL and 32665 and all related logos, are trademarks of Facebook. Except as expressly authorized by Facebook in writing, you agree not to use, sell, license, distribute, copy, publish, stream, publicly perform or display, transmit, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works or otherwise make unauthorized use of the materials, content or trademarks.
Posted by Doug | February 17, 2009 1:44 PM
Posted on February 17, 2009 13:44
My question is, what about photos? Aren't photos I take my own artistic property and cannot be duplicated or used without my permission? Do photographers with facebook pages lose all rights to their artistic work?
Posted by Ethan | February 17, 2009 12:21 PM
Posted on February 17, 2009 12:21
So, they own our personal lives? our personal thoughts? our personal photos, videos, artwork and our relationships?
I'm not sure this is a good thing, but I'm just a dumb American who's like a sheep. I'm just not sure I can baaa, er, that I can baaaaaa - k out.
Can someone please tell us what to do so I can figure out what I should think!!!!!
Please!!!!!
Posted by david | February 17, 2009 12:05 PM
Posted on February 17, 2009 12:05
Not if in the original terms and conditions they mention that they can change the t's and c's without requiring an additional agreement.
Posted by Mizz | February 17, 2009 11:17 AM
Posted on February 17, 2009 11:17
How can they legally do this? Don't you agree to the Terms of Service the first time you create an account? Isn't altering the original Terms you agreed upon like going back and adding something into a contract that's already been signed? Shouldn't users have been asked to agree to the "updated" terms and conditions?
Posted by Jeff | February 17, 2009 11:08 AM
Posted on February 17, 2009 11:08