The New Facebook Ads - Another Privacy Debacle?

privacyprof writes "Facebook recently announced a new advertising scheme called 'Social Ads.' Instead of using celebrities to hawk products, it will use pictures of Facebook users. Facebook might be entering into another privacy debacle. The site assumes that if people rate products highly or write good things about a product then they consent to being used in an advertisement for it. Facebook doesn't understand that privacy amounts to much more than keeping secrets — it involves controlling accessibility to personal data. 'The use of a person's name or image in an advertisement without that person's consent might constitute a violation of the appropriation of name or likeness tort. According to the Restatement (Second) of Torts 652C: "One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name or likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy."'"

As long as the users don't care...

[explosivejared]

As long as the users don't care I don't see the problem. Think about a lot of the people that use facebook. This is they're dream. They seek attention constantly with bawdy pictures and things. As long as facebook refrains from using pictures of users that have restricted accounts, I could see this being a bonus for particularly attention seeking users.

Re:Facebook is public

[ericrost]

They have consent.

http://www.facebook.com/terms.php [facebook.com]

Re:Ahem, from the terms of use:

[saterdaies]

Not quite. So, my friend Amy posts a picture of the two of us on Facebook as her profile picture. She has given Facebook a license to that photo. That's what the agreement stipulates. First, if Amy didn't take the photo, she might not own the rights to it and Facebook could be sued for copyright infringement. Yeah, they have that clause saying that you warrant that you have the rights to post it, but that simply won't hold up if they're sublicensing it. Sites can't be sued for what their users post, but then if they start sublicensing it in an intentional manner, it gets a lot more blurry. Second, and this one is a lot more air tight, the agreement does NOT include a clause granting endorsement rights. As the original post said, that is very different from copyright rights. Amy might own the copyright on many pictures of me. She does NOT have the right to license my image and likeness for the purposes of endorsement. She has the right to post the picture and even to give Facebook the right to use the image how they see fit as long as it isn't considered using the image/likeness as an advertisement or the like.

Re:As long as the users don't care...

[epee1221]

As long as facebook refrains from using pictures of users that have restricted accounts, I could see this being a bonus for particularly attention seeking users.

As I understand it, these ads will be displayed by the news feed page, which aggregates information from your friends' recent activity. Only people's friends would be able to see them in ads.

what a load

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of the 'feed' debacle. People shared all this information with their friends and then were suddenly shocked(!) when that information could be found all in one place. To Facebook's credit, they responding to this hysteria with some great 'privacy' controls. I put privacy in quotes because the information is still available if you are making it available. If you don't want information shared within your network (or in public) than don't share the information.

Two opt in things need to happen for your face to appear in an advertisement on (for instance) my pages. First, you need to include me in your friends. Your not going to be seeing strangers in these advertisements. Second, you need to rate the product.

There is no privacy issue here. You're sharing information with your friends. If you don't want to do that - don't.

In other words...

[nunyadambinness]

"It's exactly why I am the guy who quit Facebook almost as soon as I'd joined it."

You didn't do your research, and want to complain about it after the fact while taking no personal responsibility.

"Privacy" does not mean "free from the consequences of bad decisions". You are (I assume) an adult. Try acting like one and protecting your privacy instead of assuming someone else will.

Re:And what if they start caring? Or about ex-user

[telbij]

Give me a break. If you deactivate your account, all your information is deleted. You're complaining that if someone tags you in a photo, that tag still exists? Well, first, I'm not so sure that's true. It would be pretty sloppy engineering since the user account doesn't exist and so the link would go nowhere. And second, anyone can post anything about you anywhere, that doesn't make it someone else's responsibility.

Don't like what your friends are posting about you? Take it up with them!

Re:Facebook is public

[dnormant]

More specifically (from your link)

"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. 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."

Re:Ya

[Brian Gordon]

Come on social network users, you know what you were getting into when you filled out all of those boxes.. don't tell me it didn't cross your mind that companies would pay billions for that data.

Re:Ahem, from the terms of use:

[Mr. Slippery]

So, you gave them permission, good luck fighting it.

From their Privacy Policy [facebook.com]:

1. You should have control over your personal information. Facebook helps you share information with your friends and people around you. You choose what information you put in your profile, including contact and personal information, pictures, interests and groups you join. And you control the users with whom you share that information through the privacy settings on the My Privacy page.

Using people's personal information in advertising is a violation of this policy. So, yes, you will have good luck in fighting it.

Re:Ahem, from the terms of use:

[Registered Coward v2]

Another thought:

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."

As soon as you see your content being used for advertising, you can remove it and thereby automatically revoke Facebook's right to use it. that could be a logistical nightmare; and why would any company open themselevs up to a suit simply becasue tehy did not know that the license has expired?

Re:In other words...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

You didn't do your research, and want to complain about it after the fact while taking no personal responsibility.

Ah, another genius who not only has time to read all the detailed agreements he ever sees and understand them, but is also blessed with prescience that allows him to interpret the intentions of other parties ahead of time.

So how do you propose I should do some research on the nature of the web site, given that to gain any access at all requires creating an account, and that it is the concessions made when creating the account that is in question here?

You can only take responsibility for something you have some reasonable control over. There was no realistic way to know what would happen in this case.

As proof you're wrong

[nunyadambinness]

http://www.facebook.com/terms.php [facebook.com]

No account registration necessary.

Re:Ya

[Mrs. Grundy]

I don't think you get what is going on here. It is not targeting ads to you. It is targeting ads to others using you as an unpaid spokesperson without your direct consent (or consent in the small print of the TOS). In the example on the facebook site, a person who liked the movie 'Top Gun' has their image being used to advertise Blockbuster. I'd be pretty pissed to find my face on a Blockbuster or Walmart ad just because I liked a product that one of these companies wants to sell. I think it is all pretty unseemly.

From the way it reads...

[Etherwalk]

Well, okay, from the way it skims, they're offering advertisers space to advertise to your friends that you like something you've already decided you don't mind your friends knowing you like. So if I put "West Wing when Aaron Sorkin still running it," maybe West Wing gets an add on the side of my page or a friends' newsfeed. Unless my 2 second skimming is wrong... okay, maybe it was one and a half seconds... it's a far cry from this to the girl who had her flickr photo stolen for a major advertising blitz across multiple mediums.