Facebook Lets Advertisers Use Pictures Without Permission 260
Krokz sends in an LA Times piece that begins "A warning is bouncing through cyberspace today, landing on the Facebook statuses of many of the social networking site's users. The message: 'Facebook has agreed to let third party advertisers use your posted pictures without your permission.' It continues with a prescription of how you can protect your photos." The attention-grabbing incident in this furor involved a married woman, whose photo appeared in an ad for a dating service that was presented to her husband to view. Fortunately, both husband and wife had a sense of humor about it.
Big deal (Score:5, Funny)
Apart from goatse, I don't have any pictures on facebook.
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Big deal (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Before you start googling around, remember that once you see it, you can't unsee it.
What has been seen cannot be unseen. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.motivatedphotos.com/?id=567 [motivatedphotos.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Not only that, you'll start seeing Goatse EVERYWHERE. Business logos, childrens' television shows, family photos...
Granted, Goatse is a family photo, but still.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
There is a way, but you're not going to be able to do it.
Long term memory is formed from the short term memories that you keep recalling. So, if you want to forget something, the obvious way to do it is to not think about it. A lot.
And there's the problem. You can try not to think about something as much as you want, but you're only going to end up getting your city destroyed by a hundred foot tall marshmallow monster.
Re: (Score:2)
No problem. I replaced my profile photo and all my other photos with:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/29/fritzl.jpg [typepad.com]
Good luck selling any products now biatches!
( Well... unless they're selling discreet basement construction...)
Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook blog. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (Score:5, Informative)
Mod up please. /. really should check snopes/company blogs before posting summaries like this... :-/
Re: (Score:2)
/. really should check snopes/company blogs before posting summaries like this... :-/
What is this "/." of which you speak? You're obviously not talking about the site where we're posting right now.
Snopes (Score:5, Funny)
As always, XKCD has the answer [xkcd.com].
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow.. way to rake in the Karma there :-P.
Re:Unfounded rumor - more background (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unfounded rumor - more background (Score:4, Interesting)
http://rs79.vrx.net/.oops/yixe/ [vrx.net]
Here's where I found my face on an ad on slashdot in late may. Using liknesses for commercial purposes requires a model release and this is actionable. Anybody feel like doing a class action?
Re:Unfounded rumor - more background (Score:4, Interesting)
Interesting guess but I don't think so. One of the other 4 poeple is somebody I know, the other two I'd never seen before. That had to have come from the adserver. I'm guessing they all did.
I know what I agreed to when I clicked the thinger in facebook. You show me where is says personal likeness in commercial conduct is authorized.
Oh yeah, Jenine is Nat Torkington's wife. She's pissed. And she's not somebody you want pissed at you.
Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (Score:4, Insightful)
What Mark Zuckerberg really means is:
We have banned the third party applications responsible for exploiting the privacy of our userbase, because we reserve the right to exploit their privacy OURSELVES".
After all, there IS an option for this in the user settings, so its eems pretty clear that they either already do something similar or intend to in the future. The response from facebook is nothing more than Apple kicking an application out of their iphone app store, because they want to introduce their own version of it and make the money for themselves.
Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (Score:5, Interesting)
Why don't they say that, then? By wording it as blanket permission for "Appearance in Facebook Ads", it certainly carries an implication that you're giving them permission (opted in by default) to use your likeness in Facebook ads.
then what do they actually use? (Score:5, Interesting)
They do actually have a Privacy option, opted in by default, entitled "Appearance in Facebook Ads". I could forgive users for believing that this option, if set on, allowed them to, well, appear in Facebook Ads. The explanatory text isn't particularly clear, either:
It sounds like they're using something from your profile in Facebook ads shown to your friends, and it certainly doesn't explicitly rule out using your photos when they have you "appear[] in your friends' Facebook Ads".
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure it's opted in by default? I don't remember seeing/modifying it before, but it's off for me. Then again, I might have changed it and forgotten about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mine was opted-in by default. I never changed it. I didn't even know it existed. And I don't use applications so none of those changed it.
Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (Score:5, Insightful)
I do think users need to take some responsibility. They should be more careful about the text and photos they upload to some company's servers, and the applications they enable. But still it seems that Facebook is way too permissive with privacy and security settings, and that they are continually pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable with respect to advertising. For instance, why is it that when you go: SETTINGS > PRIVACY SETTINGS > NEWS FEEDS AND WALL, the "Appearance in Facebook Ads" is by default enabled. You need to manually turn it off. Yes it's up to users to manage their privacy settings, but having users continually being opted-in to these kinds of things (without any particular announcement, that I'm aware of) smacks of "let's see what we can get away with--and apologize only if we have to...".
Re:Unfounded rumor - Read the official facebook bl (Score:5, Informative)
This is the real problem with Facebook. They've cleverly engineered a system which *allows* you to control your privacy but then seduces or fools you into giving it up by making settings so obtuse, difficult to find and anticipate that almost nobody successfully does.
Example: I thought I had my facebook settings locked down pretty good. I turned off access of just about everything to anybody except direct friends. A few months later, my birthday comes around and all my friends start sending me happy birthday messages via Facebook! Turns out, there is / was a completely different location for the control of your birth date privacy. Not only did my friends see my birthday, but half of them had installed some kind of 'notify about your friends birthday' application so my birth date (something used commonly as security verification data) was now spread into some unknown number of 3rd party applications around the globe. There is basically no way to know now who on the planet might have gathered my birth date, be correlating it with other data and on selling it for the purposes of identity theft. It's just one small example, but this is everywhere in Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe birthday notifications are part of the Events application, which comes as part of a new account.
The Evil Plot (Score:2, Insightful)
In other news (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In other news (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but that's stupid. That's like saying that you deserve to have your information exploited and released in any way whatsoever for ANY website you use. Or, for that matter, for any ISP you use (since ISP terms of service often include the right for the ISP to use any content you transmit over their connections).
Facebook is no worse than many other services and much better than some. Like other sites, they COULD full out abuse their users, but even if they don't have a "do no evil" mission statement, they do want to keep good-will of their user base or else everyone will move on to the next thing just like everyone moved on from MySpace.
That said, Facebook has massive sketchy potential, but not anything particularly more than other sites like LinkedIn or Picassa, or Flickr or Slashdot (which for all we know could just decide one day to un-anonymize your every message you ever posted while logged in).
Now, using facebook applications? THAT I would definitely agree with you on. The first thing you should do on Facebook is shut off all applications and hooks to applications.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably also could be a not so long distance from spammers, that usually take real emails from unrelated people to send their offers. In both cases is "you" attached to an unrelated company product/offer because some of your
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
facebook generation (Score:5, Insightful)
unless facebook has you sign a proper model release form, i can't see how this kind of use is going to hold up.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
what if you go for a job and they recognise you from a site you have nothing to do with called bustedpartysluts.com?
If they recognize me from bustedpartysluts.com I'm not sure I'd want to work for them...or would that make a very interesting workplace?
Re: (Score:2)
Sell it to a porn site? Why on earth would a porn site want pictures from FaceBook, the vast majority of which are of fully clothed individuals? The zillion photos FaceBook has have no monetary value besides the traffic they bring from people who are friends the individuals in the pictures.
Now there are other reasons you shouldn't post incriminating pics to FaceBook, but porn sites buying them isn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Sell it to a porn site? Why on earth would a porn site want pictures from FaceBook, the vast majority of which are of fully clothed individuals?
There are actually websites out there that pay you for those types of photos. They have some banner that says "We found these sluts on MySpace!" and show you some of the pictures that girls like to take in the mirror wearing a bathing suit, drunk at a party making out with another girl, or just a hot girl who is fully clothed. The idea is that people will see those photos and think "Oh if I buy a membership I can see THAT GIRL naked! When all they have is a couple photos that look like they came from MySpac
Re: (Score:2)
Websites like that generally don't bother paying for photos or getting the proper rights. They just host offshore and copy paste them to their hearts content.
Re:facebook generation (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm getting real tired of this attitude. My generation isn't stupid. They know what they're doing -- they're creating a transparent society where we can all be a bit more polite to one another because everyone has dirt on everyone else, and because we want to put ourselves out there and make friends, rather than dying alone in some castle with all our toys like the boomers are right now, because they wanted their precious privacy. We actually want a gender and color-blind society, built on freedom and transparency -- and we're doing just that. Oh, the humanity! The only thing this generation regrets is that management is generally 40+ and thinks that because someone doesn't have their personal information out there, they're somehow better qualified. Which is about the only thing I hear people worrying about with their online profiles -- not whether their friends, or even their own mother, or pastor, or old high school teacher, finds out about those drunken photos. But the boomers, and their outdated notions of privacy and freedom, will die before us. This is why I'm glad people don't live forever... new ideas would never have a chance if we did.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This seems somewhat generous... People posting pictures online may know what they're doing, insofar as they don't care that others know they were at a party last weekend, or whatever else. But precious few are posting with the active intent of "creating a transparent society..."
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I've heard a lot of people suggest recently that the next couple of generations (those who are perhaps in their teens today) will look toward internet results and social networking hits on an applicant or social acquaintance or potential date with much less accusation. That they will give the benefit of the doubt to people they deal with because they'll take into account that anyone can impersonate you online, say things about you online, and that even legitimate things that are your responsibility may have
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And I still have a sense of privacy (not so much of freedom because of all the rules and laws that don't make any sense, but that's a different topic). Not that it's any trouble having privacy online, just don't give out your info. I've probably got 20 different names I go by online, none of them close to my real name, or eachother. Which actually lets me bring up persona
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Every generation believes that it knows better than the previous generation, and that certain social institutions are the way that they are simply because no one has ever tried anything different. History of course tells a different story, but those uncomfortable facts are conveniently overlooked. Would a society which is informationally "transparent" really lead to a society which is more polite? As an anecdotal experience, I had a violent childhood where the number of people whom I could trust could be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false."
--
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[quote]My generation isn't stupid. They know what they're doing -- they're creating a transparent society where we can all be a bit more polite to one another because everyone has dirt on everyone else[/quote]
No.
Your (mine too) generatrion isn't STUPID, they're ignorant. They literally do not understand that when they upload their photos to their "private" profile, there is nothing to prevent me, or you, or anybody else from writing a perl scrip that walks through all of my "friends" downloading all of the
bustedpartysluts.com (Score:2, Funny)
...what if you go for a job and they recognise you from a site you have nothing to do with called bustedpartysluts.com?
If I recognize an applicant from bustedpartysluts.com, she's almost certainly going to be hired.
Re:facebook generation (Score:4, Insightful)
You know what is sad? It's not going to end like that. It's going to end instead with so many high profile people getting burned (read: sons and daughters of politicians) that they will use it as propaganda to introduce laws to control / regulate / filter / disable the internet as we know it today. You'll have to be licensed to run a web site. Compulsory training. Mandatory insurance. Complex data security and logging laws that make it so burdensome to operate a simple web site that it will retreat to being something only possible for big corporations and beauracracies to do. You can already see it starting in the EU but that is just the tip of the iceberg.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would any porn site pay a cent for millions of low res snapshots of nobodies, almost all fully clothed, overweight, pimply etc?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
29? You're a grandpa, live with it. I'm 31 and have learned to deal with the youth-focus of society.
That said, grandparent is a spastic... I just blew my own mind with ageism C4.
(also it's the internet you idiot, you post it the world sees it (and Facebook is shit))
If anyone can trace the focus of this post then please let me know - issues when I agree with both sides make me a confused and angry old man.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, I'm the AC you're responding to and I'm actually in my 30s. I just don't happen to have the octogenarian "them damn kids - get off my lawn!" attitude that you apparently have. You clearly have a gripe with social networks *period*, just like a few decades ago people would have complained about kids "on that darned phone all the time".
I'm not condoning the shitty practices they're clearly either piloting or considering, but to blame potentially shitty business or marketing or privacy practices of a busin
They had permission; headline wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Read the terms of service [facebook.com].
When you sign up you agree to the terms of service, which clearly says you grant Facebook an unlimited, worldwide licence to use anything you post on Facebook. Unfortunately, no reads it!
Re: (Score:2)
/. preview: no one reads it!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yea, grant Facebook and unlimited license, I would not consider this license to extend to facebooks affiliates/advertisers. The issue is that its not facebook using it, they gave your IP to advertisers, and the ToS does not appear to give facebook the right to sell the unlimited license to anyone they please, but IANAL, so what do i know.
Re:They had permission; headline wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
HOWEVER, they do also say that it is "subject to your privacy and application settings" which puts a fair limit on what they are allowed to do with it - basically it says who they or anyone to whom they sub-license can only use it in ways that your privacy settings allow (which along with all their other terms basically says that you don't need to worry about advertisers using - or even having - your information unless the advertiser isn't following the rules).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Right, they have full permission to do this. But remember, truth doesn't always make interesting headlines.
Hey you Kids! Pay Attention! (Score:2)
And of course, Facebook is not mandatory, it's something that you choose to be part of.
And of course, why in hell do so many people post illegal or embarrassing items to a fairly public and insecure site?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As usual with Facebook controversies, you can very easily opt out of this and never have your photo used by an advertiser.
You can't just assume you have permission - any contract like this must be opt in.
And of course, Facebook is not mandatory, it's something that you choose to be part of.
What if the terms are changed retroactively, to photos you already uploaded?
What if you're not on Facebook and someone uploads a photo of you, that then gets used in an advert?
And of course, why in hell do so many people
Re: (Score:2)
As usual with Facebook controversies, you can very easily opt out of this and never have your photo used by an advertiser.
I'm not sure that you really can opt out. The terms of service says "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". Facebook makes no guarantees about what privacy and application settings will be provided so anything you put up is liable (perhaps accidentally) to end up being made available with no limitations.
The real question is do you tr
Even the linked article claims they were mistaken (Score:5, Informative)
First off, the claim that Facebook is allowing 3rd party advertisers to use people's photos isn't quite the case. In fact, Facebook Terms of Service (http://www.facebook.com/terms.php) state (section 10.2) "We do not give your content to advertisers."
Yes, Facebook may pair up your name and profile photo with an ad that gets sent to your friends, and yes, that can be blocked with the option mentioned in the message going around (Settings->Privacy->"News Feed and Wall"->"Facebook Ads" and select "No One" - or this link might work to get you there faster, since I'm feeling useful http://www.facebook.com/privacy/?view=feeds&tab=ads [facebook.com] )
This is not, however, 3rd party advertisers using your photo. Section 15 of the advertising guidelines for Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/ad_guidelines.php) state that an ad won't even be accepted if the advertiser is using photos for which they don't own copyright.
Now for the useful: A Facebook application that has not been authorized by you or a friend cannot access any information about you other than what's in your public search listing. This means, though, that if you have a public search listing displaying your photo, an unscrupulous advertiser could get your profile photo.
Any application you have authorized will be able to access information it requires to work. Definition of "requires to work" may vary. If you play a lot of 3rd party Facebook games, or do a lot of those quizzes going around, remember to check the Privacy Policies and Terms of Use for the application if your worried (or if you're really worried, don't do them).
Any application your friends have authorized may be able to access any information about you (on behalf of your friend) that your friend can access. To limit what the applications can see, go to Settings->Privacy->Applications and go to the Settings tab (or have another link http://www.facebook.com/privacy/?view=platform&tab=other [facebook.com] ).
http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/07/downloadsquad-and-facebook-users-get-confused-about-facebooks-advertising-policy/ [allfacebook.com] pointed out what more likely happened and downloadsquad corrected their position.
And apparently, as jdigital noted already, even the official facebook blog says that's what happened. So yeah, if you've posted stuff online, somebody may take it and abuse it.. but no, it wasn't Facebook's doing in this case. RTF....Retraction?
Careful when you read them TOS's! (Score:3, Insightful)
So please Facebook, just put all the creative commons license choices on there, and the problem is solved
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, facebook modified their terms recently, such that their rights to materials you upload expire if you choose to terminate your facebook account. I agree that it's still not good to grant them that right at all, even if it's not forever though.
What I tend to do is this: photos of people I know and which people will likely want to be tagged in and discuss I upload to facebook. Photos of scenery, vacation photos (without people), wildlife photography, etc, I post to Flickr. Facebook has an option on
Re:Careful when you read them TOS's! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Actually, facebook modified their terms recently, such that their rights to materials you upload expire if you choose to terminate your facebook account. I agree that it's still not good to grant them that right at all, even if it's not forever though."
Not exactly [facebook.com]:
"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 (except to the extent your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it)."
Of whom does "others" consist? I don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the main reason for the "We own yer shit dude", is not because they intend on printing it out and selling it at a Gallery, or using it any other way similar, but simply that if they didn't have that clause, someone would inevitably try and sue them with shit like "which server is my photo sitting on? I never gave you permission to put it on that server", or for that matter, which State the server resides in, or even country for that matter. Also depending on your settings, almost all of what your Fr
did everyone with a facebook account.... (Score:2)
Did everyone with a facebook account not notice this months ago, or did they really think that their random facebook friends really did love using DirectMediComCo for their Viagra prescription?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You see advertisements? Why aren't you using adblock like the rest of us?
Until this whole ordeal, I didn't even realize Facebook *had* ads.
what how quick they reverse course. (Score:2)
facebook has a history of bowing to user pressures.
They will reverse this within the week.
That stupid IQ test game (Score:2)
I tu
Oh yeah. (Score:2, Funny)
Where do I sign?
Related (Score:2)
Honey? (Score:5, Insightful)
"What is your photo doing on an on-line dating site?"
"Honey. What ate you doing looking through on-line dating sites?"
Re:Holy Cow! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Holy Cow! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Holy Cow! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
According to his user page, this is the one time he's commented. Give a cowhardon a break!
Re:Holy Cow! (Score:4, Funny)
Give a cowhardon a break!
Sounds painful - real painful
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Give a cowhardon a break!
Sounds painful - real painful
Paging Dr. Bennett. Paging Dr. Bennett.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You know cows are female?
Not only female, but Adult Females who have already given birth to 1-2 Calves (depending on region).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, after all the very public warnings about facebook I have no sympathy for anyone foolish enough to use their service.
Which is a stupid approach to take, considering the warnings would have come some time after many had users had signed up (and since FB has no intention of allowing account destruction = fail)
Re:Sense of humor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> What if someone else posts a picture in which you are present?
What if the New York Times puts a photo with you in it on their front page? The photographer owns the copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like the FaceBook TOS includes a model release of a sort, doesn't it?
Re:Sense of humor? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually no. If you find one of your photos used in an ad, contact that company asking for $30,000.00 for use of the photo.
If they dont, Pull a DMCA takedown on their ass via their ISP.
Honesty, people need to use the same scumbag tactics these companies use.
Re:Sense of humor? (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest reason that facebook et al need to be pursued on this, is not just the theft of image but, far more importantly the theft of your honesty and integrity. By using your image, they are implying that you approve of and recommend the product that your image is attached to. It is very much a theft of who you are. So not a copyright infringement but a fraudulent misrepresentation, it really is one of the worst 'marketing' abuses I have ever come across.
That facebook would stoop this low is a real warning to users or more accurately as it turns out, the used of facebook, time to shift locations, things are bound to get worse as try push to monetise - 'you'.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think this is one of their worst marketing abuses you should see what they do with banned accounts, they prop them up like puppets and pretend that person's still active.
Re:Sense of humor? (Score:4, Interesting)
What's worse are some of the reactions in discussions on facebook this week. There are a lot of idiots who comment that "who cares if they use my image for commercials or whatever?!".
It's amazing how little the current generation of young people care about their brand, their imaging, their right to own their data and information, and being compensated for utilization of their likeness. After all, if it's worth it to the advertiser to use your information or likeness, then IT HAS VALUE and you should be compensated for it.
I almost find the lack of concern for what was initially purported to be the actions happening more vile than the purported actions themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
By using your image, they are implying that you approve of and recommend the product that your image is attached to.
Which I consider a form of libel.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you didn't register with facebook, that doesn't give them permission to use a photo with you in it, because you never agreed to their TOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. So sue your brother-in-law for posting the picture, FaceBook for making it available to the advertiser, and the advertiser for using it. Problem solved, and it has nothing to do with FaceBooks TOS, since, as you say, you never agreed to them.
Re:Sense of humor? (Score:5, Funny)
"Frankly, after all the very public warnings about facebook I have no sympathy for anyone foolish enough to use their service."
That's why I post my personal pics to 4chan where they will be respected!
Re:Jimmy Buffett (actually, Rupert Holmes) (Score:5, Funny)
If you're now bored of Slashdot
Because your posts are always wrong
Why not spend your time on there
posting lyrics of old songs.
So while you should be sleeping,
or reading papers in bed
you confuse people normal people
who aren't completely brain dead.
"If you like Pina Coladas
And getting caught in the rain
then you're pretty simple
and you've got half a brain
If you like making love at midnight,
In the dunes of the cape.
Then you're just too specific
And I'd question if you're sane."
I think the depth of those tossed off lyrics touch all of our hearts. Remember when you have no opinions of your own then lyrics are just as good.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed. Don't click the link in grandparent's post! Morbid curiosity inspired me to do so, and I regret it, as for the first time in a very long while a website did things which made me seriously reconsider Firefox's security. I should have heeded AC's warning -- or at least disabled Javascript.
For instance, somehow this website even manages to get Firefox to spawn Internet Explorer windows, and Windows mail (to check some newsgroup). Does Firefox have some really stupid URL handlers enabled by default?