Your Face Will Soon Be In Facebook Ads 344
jfruhlinger writes "If you're planning on checking into Starbucks using Facebook Places, your friends may soon see your profile picture in a Facebook ad for Starbucks — and, it goes without saying, you won't be paid a dime. You can't opt out, unless, as Dan Tynan puts it, "studiously avoid clicking "Like" or checking into any place that has a six- or seven-figure ad budget." The ad will also include whatever text you use in your checkin, so Tynan suggests some judicious pranksterism ("Just checked into the Starbucks around the corner and this doppio mocha latte tastes like goat urine")."
Hmmm (Score:2)
Correct Article Link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
My "hello.jpg" Facebook photo would make a great ad.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Or you use a copyrighted image for fb that you don't own the copyright to (and thus couldn't have implictly given to Facebook), wait untill the lawsuits start! I think this idea won't get too far.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
As Facebook's TOS allows them to terminate any use at any time in their sole and final discretion for any or no reason, any loopholes will be conveniently plugged by administrative fiat.
Re: (Score:3)
doesn't matter - only takes a single use to break the law..
you can't go in to a bank and hold up a gun saying your going to rob people and 5min in when the cops show up put the gun down and say "you know what that isn't what i meant to do" and walk away
while person A did upload the image and was in violation of copyright. so is Facebook when they distribute for profit.
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
What I mean is that someone using that loophole to get facebook in hot water may result in being banned (and all evidence getting shredded) before anyone has time to file a complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
very true - i would be surprised if they where not banned and also sued if facebook did get in trouble.
but then again - how hard would it be to simply make spam accounts for it?
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
Finally my goatse profile pic is going to pay off.
Re: (Score:3)
All photos are copyrighted whether you apply for it or not.
Yes, but how it's implemented depends on where you live.
If you're in the US, your copyright has to be registered in order for you to be awarded statutory damages -- for unregistered copyrights, the onus is on the plaintiff to document a monetary loss.
My Face (Score:4, Insightful)
My Face won't. Why on earth should I care about anyone's opinion who isn't on Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My Face (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an important difference. If you upload a photograph of yourself, then you have agreed to Facebook's T&Cs, which gives them a transferable, commercial, license to use them as they wish. If you upload a photograph of someone else, this does not apply because copyright is jointly held by the person taking the photograph and the person represented.
This means that Facebook would be violating copyright for commercial purposes if they used a photograph of someone other than the person who uploaded it. The person pictured would have standing to sue them for copyright infringement. Facebook could then (potentially, depending on the T&Cs) sue the person who uploaded the photograph for uploading something without the legal right to do so, but I doubt they'd consider suing their users to be good business.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No it isn't. Absent a contract saying something different, the photographer owns the copyright. End of story.
Image rights are quite different and only exist in a very few jurisdictions (and not the UK, which I get the impression you're from).
Re: (Score:3)
If you pay for the photograph, it's a work for hire that belongs to you, absent a contract saying something different.
True, in theory (Score:5, Informative)
Most photo studios such as Olin Mills will claim copyright on any photos they take of you. Yes, it is in the contract, but most people don't realize that. I tried having an Olin Mills picture of my mom copied for her memorial. Nobody would do it unless I got express written permission from Olin Mills. I ended up cropping out the stupid "Olin Mills" signature and had no trouble copying it after that. But the amazing thing is that, apparently, Olin Mills and other photography studios have invested large sums of money telling every single copy-jockey in the country not to copy studio photographs. Even the copy counter at the local drugstore wouldn't do it, "Nope,see here where it says 'Olin Mills' at the bottom? Yeah, they own that picture of your dead mom for the next seventy years."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you pay for the photograph, it's a work for hire that belongs to you, absent a contract saying something different.
In the US, no it's not. You need a copyright release before you own that image. Sure, you own the paper photo itself and you are free to put it wherever you like. But you are not allowed to copy it without written consent from the photographer.
This is why I demand a copyright release up front from any photographer I pay to take pictures. I also demand all photos taken, not just the ones the photographer thinks I might like. It costs more, but it's worth it to me.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I demand a copyright release up front from any photographer I pay to take pictures. I also demand all photos taken, not just the ones the photographer thinks I might like. It costs more, but it's worth it to me.
I did this for my wedding photos in 2002. I shopped around for photographers who would do this and the only one who agreed was actually cheaper than the others and took very good photos. The first few that I approached laughed in my face and smugly told me no-one in their industry would do it. I have since advised all my friends as they got engaged to shop around for a photographer who will let you have all the photos (and raw files) and release copyright to you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you upload a photograph of someone else, this does not apply because copyright is jointly held by the person taking the photograph and the person represented.
A single global copyright law? When did that happen? Methinks you are wrong on this one.
Re: (Score:2)
However, none of them matter unless you have thousands of dollars burning a whole in your pocket to actually sue them. Most people don't and won't.
Re: (Score:2)
They might get sued (and might lose) but that is not why. Being photographed does not give you any automatic rights in the copyright to the photograph.
Re:My Face (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's an important difference. If you upload a photograph of yourself, then you have agreed to Facebook's T&Cs, which gives them a transferable, commercial, license to use them as they wish. If you upload a photograph of someone else, this does not apply because copyright is jointly held by the person taking the photograph and the person represented.
I did not agree on Facebooks T&Cs. As a "free" transferable commercial license is illegal in europe. In other words if they don't compensate me for us
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My Face (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't worry, your friends and family will upload pictures of you and tag them for you so Facebook has photos of you to draw from.
And...exactly where does Facebook get the right to use my likeness in advertising? My friends and family didn't have it when they took the picture, so they can't have transferred it to Facebook by agreeing to the Facebook T&Cs.
Re: (Score:3)
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
Please note that IP and consent to represent commercially are two different things. Facebook says you grant them unrestricted use of your copyrighted photo. That is it. By nature this is easy, whenever you take a photo you have the copyright for it unless you were contracted by a parent company to take the photo for them, in which case they retain copyright.
What this does not ask for nor guarantee is that every picture you take includes a model release of the subject. This is not required for uploading
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My Face won't. Why on earth should I care about anyone's opinion who isn't on Slashdot?
Insensitive FB clods, we don't even have faces. We just go by ascii strings of nonsensical concatenated or random words such as Stargoat, The MAZZTer, CmdrTaco, h00man, and the like. We should indeed sue them for discrimination against the faceless.
Ambrosia (Score:2)
Talk about insensitive. Goat Urine in the national drink of Elbonia. The diabetic goat produces the sweet effluent we revere in our village. It is easily caramelized into cakes and turned into a hearty liqueur with an infectiously alluring aroma. The idea of a hot milk drink approaching this ambrosia is blasphemy.
Where is Diaspora? (Score:2)
Whats the deal.... get it out there in the state its in.
The more people using it the better.
We've been waiting too long.
Re:Where is Diaspora? (Score:5, Informative)
Appleseed is open source, distributed social networking, built on a commodity stack, and installs in a few minutes on any LAMP compatible host.
Code is available here:
http://github.com/appleseedproj/appleseed [github.com]
Appleseed has a main beta site, appleseedproject.org, and approx. 150 test nodes out in the wild. If you'd like an invite, just email invite@appleseedproject.org. It's still in beta, but new features are added regularly.
We've also been fundraising, if you'd like to donate, our fundraising ends in only 4 days, but every little bit counts:
http://www.indiegogo.com/Open-Source-Social-Networking [indiegogo.com]
Here is our roadmap for the future:
http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/roadmap/ [appleseedproject.org]
Diaspora is also available, here is their github. They are running on Ruby + Rails, and they were MongoDB based, but recently switched to MySQL.
https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora [github.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Most definitely. There was a Federated Social Web Summit in Portland in July, 2010, and more on the way. There's a federated social web mailing list, and now the beginnings of a W3C working group that many of us will be working together on. I can't say for sure how it will shake out in the end, because we're all taking different approaches to see which one sticks, but I can guarantee you that a common protocol is part of the process.
Appleseed, on that note, is built to be somewhat protocol agnostic, so we
Re: (Score:2)
Or.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You could avoid using facebook altogether.
Re:Or.. (Score:5, Funny)
You could avoid using facebook altogether.
hey, I like that idea. is there a button for me to press to show everyone how I feel??
(head asplodes)
Re: (Score:2)
I already do, but my kids, mom*, sister, Evil-X, and nieces and nephews all use it, meaning my face might still wind up in a Starbucks ad. I might just join FaceBook to make their advertisers look foolish (the "goat urine" example in TFS).
* My dad doesn't have nor want a computer. "I went without one for eighty years and I don't need one now!"
Re: (Score:2)
No. They are only talking about the profile pictures, which they can reasonably assume were put there by the subjects. You could sue them if they did as you suggested and used your photo for advertising without your permission.
Re:Or.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The key thing to realize about Facebook is that Facebook's customers are its advertisers and partners. Facebook users and their personal information are the product.
Not that there aren't other businesses out there doing much the same thing - Google, NBC, CNN, and Fox for starters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And get a personal website, under your own control (Score:2)
Re:And get a personal website, under your own cont (Score:5, Interesting)
new slogans?
Facebook: because you're too dumb to own a website and manage rss feeds.
Twitter: because you're too dumb to get into an irc channel.
web2.0: because you're too dumb to notice that internet should be made of protocols not sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful? Right, because this exact post isn't made every single time facebook gets mentioned here on slashdot, and isn't obvious in the first place.
For the last time: there are reasons people still use facebook. There are bad things but there are also good things about it. If people are still using facebook, it isn't because they haven't realized they could stop using facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
You could avoid using facebook altogether.
To many people, that's a bit like saying you could avoid using cars or gas-powered vehicles, or Microsoft products altogether. It's an idea, but not completely doable or effective in many cases.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and you can also be a social shut in and never leave your house, just in case you might get mugged.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's where I am as well. I'll take pictures of where I am but then upload it with a, "we were out hiking today and got these cool pics" tag :)
[John]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Kinda like how I use Slashdot when I want to find interesting tech links accompanied by comments from sad, self-important nerds who believe they're smarter than everyone else on the planet.
Wait, what? I'm not sad.
The funny part? (Score:2, Interesting)
The funny part about that is that if they DO use my likeness in a Starbucks advert and I find out about it, I'll make no bones telling everyone on FB how much I detest Starbucks coffee. Oddly enough, I'll drink coffee in any form except decaf and Starbucks.
Stupid Marketeering retards.
Re: (Score:2)
The funny part about that is that if they DO use my likeness in a Starbucks advert and I find out about it, I'll make no bones telling everyone on FB how much I detest Starbucks coffee. Oddly enough, I'll drink coffee in any form except decaf and Starbucks.
Same here, I always avoid all large companies whenever possible. Most especially those marketing mass garbage like CrackFucks, CrackCronald's, WhenDie's, etc. Other than them I accept pretty much anything. But I most often prefer the corner spot where the owner is present.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly enough, I'll drink coffee in any form except decaf and Starbucks.
Used? Or am I being redundant?
Re:The funny part? (Score:5, Funny)
It could be worse, such as photoshopping for hemorrhoid cream:
"Suffering from anal itching, anal ache or pain, especially while sitting? Timex recommends Cool Bung brand rectal relief!"
The sort of person who uses Facebook Places... (Score:5, Insightful)
...probably also thinks it's extra cool that they get to be in a Starbucks ad.
dislike (Score:3, Insightful)
that's the reason for the lack of a dislike button
Think of it in a different way (Score:2)
California Law (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop bashing Facebook (Score:4, Insightful)
Facebook is immensely valuable. No sociological study could be funded on such a scale to determine just how much crap people will put up with from a free service before they stop using the service.
But then the joke will be on those of us that value our privacy. I know too many people that would think it was fantastic having their picture used to promote Starbucks and would sell their soul to stay on Facebook.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the problem would be if Facebook used a picture of YOU that your FRIEND had on his Facebook profile, and you don't actually have a Facebook account.
This is really not very complicated. If people have a problem with the privacy, don't use the product. Complaining about people who do use the product because it violates those people is just projecting your own values on those people. Maybe I don't care if they use my picture on anything they want (as a price for using their service).
Well that's awesome (Score:2)
I'm sure all my friends will be happy to know that Mark, Jason, and Princess (or Ace, Dirk, and Agatha, depending on when you were born) enjoy Boulevard Beer. Maybe I'll mix it up and see if Boxy Brown might recommend Mafia Wars or something.
Time to change (Score:2)
my facebook profile pics to rageguy
Poisoning the well, social media style (Score:2)
I'm reminded of when Vodafone, like so many others before it, decided to put an unedited twitter feed on its site following a hashtag for some launch or something. Usually this just leads to a lot of piss-takes but in this instance it became a nonstop expose on their £3Bn tax dodge and the subsequent slap on the wrist from a government that claimed we all had to pitch in and knuckle down to get out of the recession.
So I guess, if you see a company actually doing this, make sure anything you say about
Where's the signed model release? (Score:2)
If Facebook or Starbucks cannot show me either a model release with my signature on it, or a place where I specifically authorized the use of my image in advertising, then if my picture appears in a Starbucks ad somebody will be looking at a pretty significant lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
It's in the Facebook terms of service that you agreed to by using Facebook [facebook.com]
2. Sharing Your Content and Information
You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
I've yet to determine if "any IP content that you post on or in conjunction with Facebook" applies to IP posted to my own website on pages that include a Facebook "like" button...
Also, the "IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." Seeing as it's not enough for you to delete anything it must also be deleted by everyone you shared th
License vs. Sale of Copyright (Score:3)
Also, the "IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."
Interestingly, since the non-exclusive license is not supported by a written, signed instrument, it will (under US copyright law) also be superceded by a subsequent transfer of the copyright itself (17 U.S.C. Sec. 205: "Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive License.— A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or s
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook TOS [facebook.com]:
"1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-ex
personality rights? (Score:2)
Funny, I thought the law was quite clear about needing explicit permission to use one's likeness for advertising. I believe it's referred to as personality rights [wikipedia.org], or more specifically in the US, right to publicity [citmedialaw.org]. Failure to do so can result in a lawsuit for invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness and/or violation of the right of publicity.
Though I'm sure FB is already prepared to update its terms of use to allow this kind of use, no doubt by dangling useless "Facebook credits" i
You can opt out, and you do agree to it (Score:5, Informative)
Not to jump on anyone's nerd rage too early in the process, but according to Facebook's terms and conditions (easily found via a Google search, but here's a direct link: http://www.facebook.com/terms.php [facebook.com]) you do explicitly allow them to use your profile picture in advertising by using their service. Read point 10 - it directly states that you give that permission.
Note that it also says that you can opt out. So regardless of what this fear-mongering ITWorld article says, I would fully expect to retain that capacity. It's not even new - I saw friends pictures appearing in "friend finder" ads long ago, and figured out how to opt out. All that's changing is they're going to sell that service to 3rd parties now.
Re: (Score:3)
For many of us the pros of Facebook as an all in one communications hub for friends and relatives definitely outweigh the cons. I have friends who have found long lost relatives on facebook, I use it to keep in touch with relatives from overseas who I would ordinarily only call up at christmas and ha
Re: (Score:3)
> Well, yes. The curious thing is why anybody would agree to this in the first place.
Possibly because they are different from you and so don't share all your concerns and values. I have no Facebook account either but I don't object to other people having one.
What if.... (Score:2)
What if these images are used by some dating site? That could have a whole lot of unpleasant consequences. And I don't even mean anything nasty, just some eHarmony or match.com kind of site. They totally do need some fresh faces for their web ads, and they cannot use their customers for this (unless they pay them - and Facebook faces will probably be very competitive).
Those damn privacy laws. (Score:2)
Seeing as how Canada's already taken Facebook to task for their disregard for our privacy laws it'll be interesting how this plays out up here. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a click box doesn't constitute a legal model release form in this country.
I deleted my account... (Score:2)
Bah! (Score:2)
Yet again! (Score:2)
Over the holidays my brother in law asked again why I did not have a Facebook account. I was in a rather pedantic mood so I gave him the rather technical accounting of why and he of course ignored that blather, and I suppose rightly so, and at one point said that he was going to make me an account.
Thankfully his ADD prevented him from following though with that but I realize now I need a new tactic when dealing with people who don't understand why Facebook 'is evil'. I need a succinct and clear way to tel
Fuck facebook. (Score:2)
What's the big deal? (Score:2)
If I'm going to have ads, I'd rather have them custom made for me. This is an upgrade.
This should be interesting... (Score:2)
Is this really a problem for slashdotters? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
and if some idiot takes a pic of you and posts ABOUT you, then 'have' you then with you help from you.
this is one danger. second-hand photo posting, so to speak.
Re: (Score:2)
geeze, once again in actual english (sorry, my typing is getting worse by the year..)
"and if some idiot takes a pic OF you and/or posts ABOUT you, they now 'have you' without any help directly from you."
once names and photos are 'linked' its probably impossible to unlink. again, all passively without your say-so.
Re: (Score:2)
If they use your photo for advertising without your permission you can sue them. They know that. That's why they will use only the profile photos (I predict that they will back down from that).
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry to be rude, but that isn't actual English either. There are dozens of mistakes in those three lines.
I understood it well enough, and I can only read English.
I also understood it fine, and I can neither read nor write in English.
Re:Doy?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Fundamentally there's something wrong with a corporation as large as Starbucks being unable or unwilling to pay for models or get permission directly from the person whom they're wanting to feature.
Re: (Score:2)
There's something wrong with a corporation that charges $10 for a cup of coffee, too. This is nothing new.
Re: (Score:2)
$10 for a cup of coffee???? I didn't know the warm, brown liquid that was sold at Starbucks was actually "coffee". Now, if I want a cup or warmed up, caffeinated, over sweet yak urine...
Re: (Score:2)
I would conceivably pay $10 for a cup where I've been shown that everything has been done perfectly from the growing location, to cultivating, to roasting, to grinding, to brewing. The beans would probably be Kona, and the roasting process would have been meticulously tweaked to perfection.
If it's just any old beans with some frothy milk added, then no. These days, a $1 McDonald's coffee is perfectly good for when I forget to buy more beans or I'm too rushed to do it myself.
That said, the donotwant tag on t
Re: (Score:2)
Fundamentally there's something wrong with a corporation as large as Starbucks being unable or unwilling to pay for models or get permission directly from the person whom they're wanting to feature.
They don't want to pay for anonymous models. They want all your friends to know you go to Starbucks in the hopes that subconsciously it will make them more likely to go next time they want coffee -- they are using the ads as a form of reference -- "I like Starbucks, you should check it out."
As for getting your permission, you opted in to Facebook, so you gave FB permission to do whatever they want with anything you put there. While it feels more intrusive because it's your face on the screen, it's not rea
Privacy? (Score:2)
While I agree with the sentiment, what this really demonstrates is that the expectation of privacy needs to be revised to provide some protection.
Sure, but it's not going to happen. What I think is required is, if everyone can navigate our own data, we want to navigate the data of corporate and government employees, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook has your express permission to so use your profile picture.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you gave expressed permission by using the service. I use the service, and thus give permission. If you don't want them to have permission, don't use the service.
I think a bigger issue is that they change the terms of the service after-the-fact.
Re: (Score:3)
offtopic question (Score:2)
As an arachnophobe myself I have 4 questions for you :
When are the Red Spiders coming ?
How many of them are they ?
How big are they ?
How can we kill them ?
Re: (Score:2)
How many of them are they ? 173 last time I counted.
How big are they ? Larger than a walnut but smaller than a breadbox.
How can we kill them ? With something larger than a breadbox or hotter than a toaster oven. You may also use a stick with a nail in it, a hose that squirts Jello pudding or a bucket of dried hairballs.
Re: (Score:2)
That's really quite easy. I'm doing it right now, in fact. I don't like the trend but this is silly FUD - doing nothing protects me, I have to make an effort to be used.
Defend by doing nothing. How very Zen.
Unfortunately, thanks in part to Facebook, we're seeing the emergence of a mindset that requires one to opt-out of others' get-rich-quick schemes. At some point in the future, doing nothing may no longer work. We may very well be damned if we do and damned if we don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Defend by doing nothing. How very Zen.
Defend against what? What have you done to defend yourself against the recent tiger attacks? Nothing, I'll wager, and Zen has nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Defend by doing nothing. How very Zen.
Defend against what? What have you done to defend yourself against the recent tiger attacks? Nothing, I'll wager, and Zen has nothing to do with it.
I purchased a tiger repellant rock [criticalthinking.org.uk] ... and it's been working like a charm*
* not to be confused with a tiger repellant charm, which has been proven to be a scam.
Re: (Score:2)