Caroline McCarthy has the story about Facebook warning Nick Denton about the potential of getting kicked off Facebook. As McCarthy states:
On Tuesday, Denton–who took over as managing editor of Gawker.com this month after several staff departures–posted a bit of an expose on 25-year-old Emily Brill, daughter of New York publishing figure Steve Brill. Screenshots of the younger Brill’s Facebook profile, featuring glamorous photos of a yachting trip to the British Virgin Islands, as well as excited “status” messages about an impending trip to the Caribbean luxury getaway of St. Barth’s, were juxtaposed with an older photograph of the Brown graduate when she was significantly heavier.
This sheds light on the fact that Facebook can ban people at will as well as choose to allow people to break the rules. Earlier this month, Robert Scoble was kicked off for testing out Plaxo’s new Facebook import feature. That feature has not launched yet and probably never will given Facebook’s response that the script was a violation of their terms of service. Robert Scoble was allowed back in within 24 hours of being banned.
Nick Denton responded to McCarthy’s request for comment by saying that the writer of the original story was “trying to get his retaliation in first, because we’re working on a story about him.” There is no word on whether Emily Brill is a friend of someone at Facebook but odds are somebody complained following the incident. Should journalists and bloggers be able to use Facebook profile content in news stories?
Employers frequently reject job applicants due to incriminating photos on the site. I figure information at that point is public. If news is generally available to the public, shouldn’t a Facebook newsfeed be as well? I have a feeling that this is not the last time we hear about Facebook being used as a source in news articles.
![[Inside Social Apps 2012]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/ISA2012_336x100_F_RegisterNow.gif)
![[AllFacebook Stats: Facebook Analytics for Your Business]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/stpro_allfacebookstats.gif)
![[How can Facebook change your business?]](http://www.allfacebook.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/allfacebook2/images/FMB_A_MAY2011_336x100_F.gif)
I'm quite sure Facebook is out of line on this one. If I'm a judge (of which I'm not), I see this as classic "fair use". IOW, Gawker did not post the original work – the website – but screenshots thereof. It falls into the same camp as making a recording from the radio or photocopying a book. It's a copy of a copy and unless Facebook can show that Gawker's printing of the photo resulted in irreparable damage to Emily Brill.Additionally, the argument could easily be made that Ms. Brill is a public figure, based on her father, (same as Chelsea Clinton or the Bush twins), and so the rules are (by law) different.
Comment by Aaron Brazell — January 16, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Admittedly I'm not following this closely, but I thought the issue was breach of terms of service, not infringement of copyright.
Comment by Rob Hyndman — January 16, 2008 @ 11:11 am
I don't agree here. On two points. I can't see how the daughter of a relatively unknown person (well known in PR & publishing but not well known elsewhere) would be under some sort of fair use law.Also, getting kicked off Facebook and legality. How is that legal? We aren't dues paying members – it's a free service. I don't think that is any law that covers that.
Comment by Jonathan Trenn — January 16, 2008 @ 11:32 am
I'm quite sure Facebook is out of line on this one. If I'm a judge (of which I'm not), I see this as classic "fair use". IOW, Gawker did not post the original work – the website – but screenshots thereof. It falls into the same camp as making a recording from the radio or photocopying a book. It's a copy of a copy and unless Facebook can show that Gawker's printing of the photo resulted in irreparable damage to Emily Brill.
Additionally, the argument could easily be made that Ms. Brill is a public figure, based on her father, (same as Chelsea Clinton or the Bush twins), and so the rules are (by law) different.
Comment by Aaron Brazell — January 16, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
Admittedly I'm not following this closely, but I thought the issue was breach of terms of service, not infringement of copyright.
Comment by Rob Hyndman — January 16, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
I don't agree here. On two points. I can't see how the daughter of a relatively unknown person (well known in PR & publishing but not well known elsewhere) would be under some sort of fair use law.
Also, getting kicked off Facebook and legality. How is that legal? We aren't dues paying members – it's a free service. I don't think that is any law that covers that.
Comment by Jonathan Trenn — January 16, 2008 @ 12:32 pm