Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Businesses Facebook Your Rights Online

Your Face Will Soon Be In Facebook Ads 344

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the my-ad-where dept.
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")."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Your Face Will Soon Be In Facebook Ads

Comments Filter:
  • I'm guessing my 'grey silhouette' default picture won't do them much good?
  • My Face (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stargoat (658863) * <stargoat@gmail.com> on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @03:26PM (#34998932) Journal

    My Face won't. Why on earth should I care about anyone's opinion who isn't on Slashdot?

    • 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.
      • Re:My Face (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 (641858) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @03:45PM (#34999190) Journal

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward

          copyright is jointly held by the person taking the photograph and the person represented

          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).

          • by shentino (1139071)

            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)

              by spun (1352) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @04:31PM (#34999842) Journal

              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."

            • by ArcherB (796902)

              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.

              • 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.

        • by gfreeman (456642)

          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.

        • You may well have reasonable points though I would doubt it.

          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.
        • 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.

          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)

          by vmxeo (173325) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @04:07PM (#34999496) Homepage Journal
          Not quite. The photographer holds the copyright. People in the pictures have a right to publicity, but its considered separate from the actual copyright on the photo. Like in the Virgin Mobile case [nytimes.com], they legally had the copyright but did not have consent from the model [citmedialaw.org], aka "right to publicity".
          • Mod parent up. This is what I was thinking of, but my post is actually wrong and shouldn't be sitting at +5.
        • 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

      • Except that there is a difference between tags that link to an account, and tags that don't. For instance, tags that don't link to an account aren't searchable, or indexed. They are attatched to the picture and that's it. Even if someone tags a non-account person in multiple pictures in the same album, these tags don't link together.
      • Re:My Face (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DragonWriter (970822) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @04:21PM (#34999686)

        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.

    • Right, my mom is the only person I know who uses her face on her facebook account and I think it would be really awesome to see her on a billboard or something, as would she.
    • by h00manist (800926)

      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.

      • 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.

  • 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.

    • by dominion (3153) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @03:48PM (#34999240) Homepage

      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]

    • Diaspora has the makings of a really beautiful, non-cruft social network but right now it's one half-step above proof of concept. Some things work, but not many.
  • Or.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by js3 (319268) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @03:27PM (#34998944)

    You could avoid using facebook altogether.

    • Re:Or.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @03:38PM (#34999078)

      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)

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      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!"

      • 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.

        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)

      by dkleinsc (563838) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @03:53PM (#34999302) Homepage

      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.

    • That's how things used to be done.
    • 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.

    • by h00manist (800926)

      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.

    • by gparent (1242548)

      Yeah, and you can also be a social shut in and never leave your house, just in case you might get mugged.

    • My thoughts exactly. The list of reasons for me avoiding Facebook gets longer by the day.
  • The funny part? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Timex (11710)

    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.

    • by h00manist (800926)

      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.

    • by PPH (736903)

      Oddly enough, I'll drink coffee in any form except decaf and Starbucks.

      Used? Or am I being redundant?

  • by eric_brissette (778634) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @03:34PM (#34999024)

    ...probably also thinks it's extra cool that they get to be in a Starbucks ad.

  • dislike (Score:3, Insightful)

    by metageek (466836) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @03:34PM (#34999028)

    that's the reason for the lack of a dislike button

  • Sense there is no doubt that they will keep doing this to anyone and everyone, just put a positive spin on it. Instead of Starbucks using your face for free advertisement, your Facebook posts are being sponsored by Starbucks! You can go trolling with Starbucks logo always adorning your posts, the ever vigilant muse of overpriced caffeinated beverages giving you credence to bid your friends to come and partake. Whats That?!? Jerry is endorsing Mc Donald's? I must head over and eat some Big Macs because my Fa
  • California Law (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dmgxmichael (1219692) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @03:38PM (#34999080) Homepage
    Isn't this illegal in California? They have a law on the books that was lobbied into place by Hollywood, but it's vague enough to be applied to the average Joe. If so class action lawsuit in 5... 4.... 3...
  • by mr1911 (1942298) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @03:40PM (#34999124)
    To all those bashing Facebook saying it has no value: stop it.

    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.
    • 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).

  • 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.

  • my facebook profile pics to rageguy

  • 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

  • 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.

    • 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:

      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-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.

      2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).

      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

      • 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

    • 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.

      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
  • 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

  • by Corbets (169101) on Tuesday January 25, 2011 @04:10PM (#34999542) Homepage

    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.

  • 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).

  • 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.

  • and it seems to have stayed deleted. So that's still an option.
  • I'm not too worried about this. They can only do it once, then all my friends will de-friend me because they think I like Starbucks.
  • 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

  • This just solidifies my already very negative view of Facebook as a whole. Let other people throw their information and photos away, I will never sign up for an account again.
  • If I'm going to have ads, I'd rather have them custom made for me. This is an upgrade.

  • My profile picture is a lolcat. I think my friends will just issue a collective "wtf?" and move on from any ads featuring it.
  • I'm so fugly there is no way they would ever choose my pic for an ad... plus, I don't even have a Facebook account!

Your own mileage may vary.

Working...