18 Comments »
Over the weekend Consumerist published an article describing Facebook’s updated Terms of Service. Now users are up in arms over the updated terms. The angry users which includes some of Facebook’s biggest evangelists, claim that Facebook is in the wrong after developing a more aggressive terms. A search for “Facebook terms” on Twitter turns up a ton of tweets from angry users. The statement which is causing some controversy is as follows:
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.
Facebook has essentially changed their terms so they now own your content indefinitely. So what does this mean for the average user? Probably very little. Mark Zuckerberg has clarified why they updated the terms on the Facebook Blog:
When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created—one in the person’s sent messages box and the other in their friend’s inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear.
Mark goes on to highlight the conflicting position with users:
Still, the interesting thing about this change in our terms is that it highlights the importance of these issues and their complexity. People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them—like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on—to other services and grant those services access to those people’s information. These two positions are at odds with each other.
So should users be angry about the latest change in the terms of service? I don’t think so. Do you think Facebook is going to resell your family photos to others? Does the company have a diabolical plot to resell your personal information? Doubtful. While Facebook could theoretically turn into an “evil corporation”, I doubt that will ever happen and most definitely if it did, it wouldn’t happen anytime soon.
Facebook is too busy worrying about how to handle the millions of new users that are added to their service every week.
If this change of TOS is really about messages in users’ inboxes, then Facebook should LIMIT the terms to those specific types of content. As it reads right now, everything (including my family photos) are Facebook’s to do with as it pleases.
Is Facebook an “evil corporation” for doing this? No. But I think they are wrong to make such sweeping control of user-submitted content ESPECIALLY without notifying users and making its intentions extremely clear.
I hope they’ll listen to their users and ALTER the language of the TOS to LIMIT what Facebook is able to “keep.”
I agree… and yet it really is interesting to see where these privacy issues take us. It seems we want complete control and yet if enough folks are willing to give it up, then the rest of us need to just play along or be left out of the fun.
I could care less about this change to the Facebook TOS. Won’t change anything I do over there. I’ll keep uploading away.
I think it’s important to note that while I don’t expect the *current* owners of facebook to screw me over, I *DO* expect the subsequent ownership to do a professional job of screwing me.
If you need proof of this, please review every acquisition of the Internet era. EVERY.LAST.ONE.
How long until News Corp. ponies up and makes FaceSpace happen?
“Do you think Facebook is going to resell your family photos to others? Does the company have a diabolical plot to resell your personal information? Doubtful.” come on why are you so naive?!!?!. and “While Facebook could theoretically turn into an “evil corporation”, I doubt that will ever happen and most definitely if it did, it wouldn’t happen anytime soon.” who is writing this???? so it’s ok to accept, wait and let it happen if it doesn’t happen anytime soon!!!!!!!!!!!
“fowl” –> “foul”
@Jeffrey, that’s a very good and embarrassing point
“I doubt that will ever happen and most definitely if it did, it wouldn’t happen anytime soon.”
question: so it means it would happen eventually?
it will.. it did.. it wouldn’t.. 3 contradicting verbs in one sentence.. i’m mixed up with this “clarification”.
What artists care about is not their inbox messages but their painstakingly created content that they use Facebook to share. I spend a enormous amount of time and money crafting an animated series. Facbook is one delivery mechanism. I have others. It’s been great promoting it via Facebook word of mouth, but now that Facebook apparently has a perpetual, irrevocable right to create derivative works of my content, I’m pretty pissed off.
(I don’t care, you nitpickers, if this is new or 1 year old, it’s new to me, and for that, I hang my head.)
I specifically have a very friendly “some rights reserved” Creative Commons license embedded in my cartoons because of course I want people to embed and share them. But I specifically chose the no-derivative-works CC license. Gee, thanks Facebook, for overriding me in a nice clear, consensual way.
Last minute updates on social networks should prove one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you want to have absolute ruling authority over your content you will need to create your own network.
Facebook is the same company that did sell their user’s contact information. I don’t often add many applications onto facebook because I respect the privacy of my friend’s and don’t feel I should give carte blanche access to their contact information.
@Salimane
How long have you been reading AllFacebook? This blog makes a living off of Facebook, so why would he ever be critical of it? This isn’t journalism, it’s a blog.
I don’t have a problem with it
That all sounds “nice”, but in a courtroom, lawyers don’t sound “nice” - they sound like this:
“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”
Please explain specifically how photographs are covered by this policy, and what specifically is meant by “it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user’s privacy settings.” (from a Facebook spokesperson).
And how do you justify changing the policy with no warning and opportunity for Facebook users to remove content they don’t want ensnared in your legalese?
It is not what they do with our content that is the most outrageous (after all that was written on the website that everything on there was their property), it is more the way they treat users: top down relationship with a high dose of contempt. Not really the mindset of social media.
Web hosting sites, including SNS, are not of clouds, they are privately owned parking lots. How friendly or unfriendly the owners are is a matter of perception and, in any case, always changes over time.
i’m really upset about this. why doesn’t facebook set a date for the TOS to change to give users a chance to delete content they wish to remain their own? i will not be sharing photos any longer and would appreciate everything i deleted tonight to actually be deleted permanently. i have previously been a strong advocate for facebook - no longer!
@anon
sorry i was just surprised by what i was reading which obviously does not make any sense.
@ TOS changes
what’s a TOS ? it’s like a contract between two parties that agreed on some terms. imagine you have a contract with your employer stating that he should be paying you amount A. then without telling you, he went and change the contract to say he’s now paying amount B…first is that valid !?!?! since you didn’t know, accept the new contract….
Mark is the man.