Geesh, everyone got their panties in a bunch over the weekend due to Facebook’s new terms of service.
Truth is it doesn’t matter.
If you are uploading your content to, and participating online with, you are giving a HUGE amount of ownership to services that, well, you really don’t control.
They can go out of business. They can delete your account. They can make money off of your content. They probably all have wacky stuff in their terms of services.
This is true for Flickr. For YouTube. For Twitter. For Facebook. For all of them.
I’ve been yelling and screaming about how Facebook has been treating its customers for a year now. Facebook already showed how they treat you by the way they delete accounts: they have complete control and you have none.
Deal with it! Me? I dealt with it by putting all my photos into the public domain when I upload them to Flickr.
I dealt with it by having Fast Company own its own servers and content. It’s a real pain, too, takes me a lot longer to upload my videos to FastCompany.tv than it does to upload them to TubeMogul. But then we have control and we know when ads will be put on top of our content, etc.
So, relax, have fun, just realize you’re here to serve Facebook, not necessarily the other way around.
UPDATE: There’s an interesting conversation going on about this over on friendfeed, including links to a comparison of several TOS’s of several user generated content sites.
Actually, not all terms of service are as bad as Facebook’s. If you look at Flickr’s terms, it simply states that Yahoo can use your content on the site, and specifically notes that they will display advertising on the site as well. It doesn’t make a claim that they can resell your content (like Facebook does). Facebook isn’t alone in their “we can do anything we want” license, but there are MANY services (Flickr, WordPress.com, Blogger, Blip, SmugMug, etc) that have perfectly reasonable license terms that don’t allow the company to use content without restriction.
I’m glad to see that mainstream media picked up on this story, since I blogged about it on February 9th and will be presenting a talk about it at Ignite Portland on Thursday.
Actually, not all terms of service are as bad as Facebook’s. If you look at Flickr’s terms, it simply states that Yahoo can use your content on the site, and specifically notes that they will display advertising on the site as well. It doesn’t make a claim that they can resell your content (like Facebook does). Facebook isn’t alone in their “we can do anything we want” license, but there are MANY services (Flickr, WordPress.com, Blogger, Blip, SmugMug, etc) that have perfectly reasonable license terms that don’t allow the company to use content without restriction.
I’m glad to see that mainstream media picked up on this story, since I blogged about it on February 9th and will be presenting a talk about it at Ignite Portland on Thursday.
It makes me sad that there will be no original professional content using Facebook as a platform. I was considering using it for a base for my webcomic, but that idea is scrapped.
It makes me sad that there will be no original professional content using Facebook as a platform. I was considering using it for a base for my webcomic, but that idea is scrapped.
Robert, what about the professional photographers, and other content creators who want to share their work, but still maintain the rights? Should they just silo all their content on their own servers? That seems kind of retroactive. It’s not prudent to be nonchalant about a major issue like this.
Robert, what about the professional photographers, and other content creators who want to share their work, but still maintain the rights? Should they just silo all their content on their own servers? That seems kind of retroactive. It’s not prudent to be nonchalant about a major issue like this.
Great article, I couldn’t agree more. The issue of what happens to your data once it is on these services came up in a lecture once. Services are quick to take your data, but not so quick in making it easy to get back.
I wrote about this myself yesterday on my blog!
Great article, I couldn’t agree more. The issue of what happens to your data once it is on these services came up in a lecture once. Services are quick to take your data, but not so quick in making it easy to get back.
I wrote about this myself yesterday on my blog!
I think we have all known all along that by uploading content we were giving them certain license to it. I think the issue people are having here is that the change to the TOS seemed a little covert and Facebook did not use the transparency that is so often talked about. Not that they intended to deceive but they didn’t make any effort to let anyone know what they were doing. Allowing people to find out about a change in company policy through a a third party blogger just opens the door for miss communication, hurt feelings and backlash.
I think we have all known all along that by uploading content we were giving them certain license to it. I think the issue people are having here is that the change to the TOS seemed a little covert and Facebook did not use the transparency that is so often talked about. Not that they intended to deceive but they didn’t make any effort to let anyone know what they were doing. Allowing people to find out about a change in company policy through a a third party blogger just opens the door for miss communication, hurt feelings and backlash.
Robert,
At the risk of shooting my own foot, I for one would love stronger – much stronger – regulations on what companies can and cannot do with user accounts and user data, as well as an external “appeal” entity.
You read the TOS, and you know what you’re signing up for. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect everyone to be as savvy though.
One could say the same for when you started complaining about Facebooks 5000 friend limit. Why is this a big deal? Why do you feel you should be entitled to more. It’s their service.
That said, I still don’t use facebook and have no plans to start. I like controlling my information and having email archives that extend as far back as I want. Not to mention anyone can contact me, even if their company blocks facebook (since very few outlaw email).
I don’t like that a company can shut me down for no reason at all. At least with email their is competition. I can also move my email (thanks to having a domain).
I won’t use a service in a way I can’t afford to loose unless I either have backups, other options.
Even my twitter feed is backed up to my personal database. So if twitter goes under, I still have a record of my content. Still thinking of a way to harvest tinyurl.com links for future use should that service go under.
If you have no control over your data, it’s your fault, not a companies. Thanks to many companies out there who are very good about making data portable (WordPress, even Google is very good).
Robert,
At the risk of shooting my own foot, I for one would love stronger – much stronger – regulations on what companies can and cannot do with user accounts and user data, as well as an external “appeal” entity.
You read the TOS, and you know what you’re signing up for. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect everyone to be as savvy though.
One could say the same for when you started complaining about Facebooks 5000 friend limit. Why is this a big deal? Why do you feel you should be entitled to more. It’s their service.
That said, I still don’t use facebook and have no plans to start. I like controlling my information and having email archives that extend as far back as I want. Not to mention anyone can contact me, even if their company blocks facebook (since very few outlaw email).
I don’t like that a company can shut me down for no reason at all. At least with email their is competition. I can also move my email (thanks to having a domain).
I won’t use a service in a way I can’t afford to loose unless I either have backups, other options.
Even my twitter feed is backed up to my personal database. So if twitter goes under, I still have a record of my content. Still thinking of a way to harvest tinyurl.com links for future use should that service go under.
If you have no control over your data, it’s your fault, not a companies. Thanks to many companies out there who are very good about making data portable (WordPress, even Google is very good).
I wouldn’t call Facebook users “customers”. They are “users”, the service they use is free and provided without any warranty.
Facebook customers are advertisers, and only advertisers since everything else is free. And they are treated better (for example, support response time is faster when it concerns Ads). But it’s normal.
As a user, nobody should expect anything from a free service: it’s all bonus !
I wouldn’t call Facebook users “customers”. They are “users”, the service they use is free and provided without any warranty.
Facebook customers are advertisers, and only advertisers since everything else is free. And they are treated better (for example, support response time is faster when it concerns Ads). But it’s normal.
As a user, nobody should expect anything from a free service: it’s all bonus !
The reason it doesn’t matter is because these terms aren’t legally binding just because Facebook puts them in their ToS agreement.
Microsoft could put in their ToS agreement for your first born to be spoon fed with all sorts of MS crapware until they’re 12 years old, before transferring ownership of said being to Bill Gates himself. Doesn’t make it legally binding, now does it?
The reason it doesn’t matter is because these terms aren’t legally binding just because Facebook puts them in their ToS agreement.
Microsoft could put in their ToS agreement for your first born to be spoon fed with all sorts of MS crapware until they’re 12 years old, before transferring ownership of said being to Bill Gates himself. Doesn’t make it legally binding, now does it?
A professional photographer who wants to keep control will either only upload low resolution versions or will put a watermark on top of the image or both. That is the ONLY way to make sure you keep control. By the way, legally the author or content creator ALWAYS has copyrights. But defending those online is pretty difficult sometimes.
A professional photographer who wants to keep control will either only upload low resolution versions or will put a watermark on top of the image or both. That is the ONLY way to make sure you keep control. By the way, legally the author or content creator ALWAYS has copyrights. But defending those online is pretty difficult sometimes.
I agree with the practical reality of the situation as you summarize it in your post. But I strongly disagree with the “doesn’t matter” premise.
The real issue here is about data ownership. Or rather the total lack thereof. Our personal information is a very valuable asset. Lots of different interests are vying for control of it. Anybody who gets their hands on it can claim ownership. Yet as individuals we have no rights.
We wouldn’t feel right if anyone who could get hold of it could grab a chunk of our intellectual, financial or property assets. We’ve got laws that protect us from that happening. Yet none in the personal information asset world. That’s the real issue here. Not whether FB stores two copies of our messages on their servers.
I posted this yesterday with more detail.
I agree with the practical reality of the situation as you summarize it in your post. But I strongly disagree with the “doesn’t matter” premise.
The real issue here is about data ownership. Or rather the total lack thereof. Our personal information is a very valuable asset. Lots of different interests are vying for control of it. Anybody who gets their hands on it can claim ownership. Yet as individuals we have no rights.
We wouldn’t feel right if anyone who could get hold of it could grab a chunk of our intellectual, financial or property assets. We’ve got laws that protect us from that happening. Yet none in the personal information asset world. That’s the real issue here. Not whether FB stores two copies of our messages on their servers.
I posted this yesterday with more detail.
If you’re dumb enough to put real and/or personal info up on a website that you have no control over, or post hi-res images anywhere without watermarking them, then you get what you’re asking for.
If you’re dumb enough to put real and/or personal info up on a website that you have no control over, or post hi-res images anywhere without watermarking them, then you get what you’re asking for.
[...] Scoble points out, you work for Facebook. If you think about it, this is true for most websites. Yes even [...]
It’s ridiculous to hear all this complaining. Bottom line is DON’T LIKE IT? DON’T USE IT! I can’t believe how many people are starting groups on Facebook to complain about Facebook’s TOS.
Yea the possibilities of what FB can do with such data can be scary, but have they done anything yet? Has Facebook ever done anything harmful to its users with this type of information? Yes, there was the whole Beacon thing when it first came out, but FB realized the mistake and pulled the program.
It’s ridiculous to hear all this complaining. Bottom line is DON’T LIKE IT? DON’T USE IT! I can’t believe how many people are starting groups on Facebook to complain about Facebook’s TOS.
Yea the possibilities of what FB can do with such data can be scary, but have they done anything yet? Has Facebook ever done anything harmful to its users with this type of information? Yes, there was the whole Beacon thing when it first came out, but FB realized the mistake and pulled the program.
I agree with Robert Scoble.
I am an attorney who in the past has drafted Terms of Service and Privacy Policies. It is unfortunate, but whenever you post anything on the web (including Facebook), you should assume there could be a security or other failure and all your material could end up public.
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies do not – unfortunately – provide much recourse or protection to the user. In fact many of these terms and policies are written essentially to protect the company making them and not the user. I hope that this changes in the future, but even if it did, there could be a security failure and your posts and materials could end up on the Internet for all to see and use and you would have little recourse – if any.
It would be interesting to see if user communities ever develop a “union” and essentially demand certain policies and terms. I wonder why this has not happened although I understand why organized collective action is difficult. If this were to occur, perhaps led by privacy or internet advocates, it may be possible to demand and receive more protection. Just a thought.
People should take the time to read Terms of Service and Privacy Policies on the services they use. They will find that many – if not most – are not there to protect the user and thus the user will be more cognizant of the type of information they post and make choices based on this.
Bottom line: Assume everything is public and in the public domain when you post anything in any forum – whether secure or not – whether shielded by privacy controls or not. Security is not fool-proof or hacker-proof. If you let this guide you, you will not have a problem in the future if things go wrong.
I agree with Robert Scoble.
I am an attorney who in the past has drafted Terms of Service and Privacy Policies. It is unfortunate, but whenever you post anything on the web (including Facebook), you should assume there could be a security or other failure and all your material could end up public.
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies do not – unfortunately – provide much recourse or protection to the user. In fact many of these terms and policies are written essentially to protect the company making them and not the user. I hope that this changes in the future, but even if it did, there could be a security failure and your posts and materials could end up on the Internet for all to see and use and you would have little recourse – if any.
It would be interesting to see if user communities ever develop a “union” and essentially demand certain policies and terms. I wonder why this has not happened although I understand why organized collective action is difficult. If this were to occur, perhaps led by privacy or internet advocates, it may be possible to demand and receive more protection. Just a thought.
People should take the time to read Terms of Service and Privacy Policies on the services they use. They will find that many – if not most – are not there to protect the user and thus the user will be more cognizant of the type of information they post and make choices based on this.
Bottom line: Assume everything is public and in the public domain when you post anything in any forum – whether secure or not – whether shielded by privacy controls or not. Security is not fool-proof or hacker-proof. If you let this guide you, you will not have a problem in the future if things go wrong.
I don’t like the platform on Facebook.
I don’t like the platform on Facebook.
Couldn’t agree more!
If data ownership is ‘that’ important to you, hold the data yourself.
If anyone has data on Facebook (or other services) then you’re already agreeing that they can hold on to it as they see fit. Facebook’s revised TOS is not a big deal.
Couldn’t agree more!
If data ownership is ‘that’ important to you, hold the data yourself.
If anyone has data on Facebook (or other services) then you’re already agreeing that they can hold on to it as they see fit. Facebook’s revised TOS is not a big deal.
But what’s Facebook going to do with all that data? Start a Corbis/Getty Images of out-of-focus snapshots? They can’t even extract real revenue, plundering the uploaded content is mining a sea of fool’s gold. Such a strategy is well beyond the ‘Emperor Hath no Clothes’, that’s on the level of the ‘Emperor Doesn’t Even Believe in the Existence of Clothes’.
Draconian overreach for sure, but that’s true of most of Web 2.0erra. And photography is a commodity now, prosumer level is professional enough to avoid the high-end studios, but not always, your average joe, with a $2,000 dig camera, still isn’t going to be doing EQUITY/SAG headshots. Just saying, as access increases, skill-level increases, but true in reverse too, access increases garbage-heaps serious, like in the early Desktop Publishing days where people created flyers using EVERY SINGLE FONT on the system.
But what’s Facebook going to do with all that data? Start a Corbis/Getty Images of out-of-focus snapshots? They can’t even extract real revenue, plundering the uploaded content is mining a sea of fool’s gold. Such a strategy is well beyond the ‘Emperor Hath no Clothes’, that’s on the level of the ‘Emperor Doesn’t Even Believe in the Existence of Clothes’.
Draconian overreach for sure, but that’s true of most of Web 2.0erra. And photography is a commodity now, prosumer level is professional enough to avoid the high-end studios, but not always, your average joe, with a $2,000 dig camera, still isn’t going to be doing EQUITY/SAG headshots. Just saying, as access increases, skill-level increases, but true in reverse too, access increases garbage-heaps serious, like in the early Desktop Publishing days where people created flyers using EVERY SINGLE FONT on the system.
But when I don’t own any rights to the photos I did upload into Facebook?
But when I don’t own any rights to the photos I did upload into Facebook?
Heck even where you think you have control you don’t. Paypal will even hold your cash and not give it to you. And that was money that was yours!
While I’m here why not tell everyone even your bank can hold your funds based on your past banking experiences for up to a couple of weeks. Is it legal I’m not sure – but I’ll bet they covered there butts in their TOS documents.
So when it comes to content and participation in Social Networks et al people are being surprised. Thanks for clearing it up Robert.
It was great having you come by yesterday in Pleasanton – Thanks again!
Heck even where you think you have control you don’t. Paypal will even hold your cash and not give it to you. And that was money that was yours!
While I’m here why not tell everyone even your bank can hold your funds based on your past banking experiences for up to a couple of weeks. Is it legal I’m not sure – but I’ll bet they covered there butts in their TOS documents.
So when it comes to content and participation in Social Networks et al people are being surprised. Thanks for clearing it up Robert.
It was great having you come by yesterday in Pleasanton – Thanks again!
Scoble’s missed the boat, same as Chris Brogan did.
Facebook (and LinkedIn) has Terms that are NOT the same as everyone else’s, and which, unlike MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Picasa and Twitter, do NOT permit you to revoke their license to use your content.
I dove into the legal issues (enforceability, effect of Zuckerberg’s post, etc) here: http://is.gd/jJXy
Scoble’s missed the boat, same as Chris Brogan did.
Facebook (and LinkedIn) has Terms that are NOT the same as everyone else’s, and which, unlike MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Picasa and Twitter, do NOT permit you to revoke their license to use your content.
I dove into the legal issues (enforceability, effect of Zuckerberg’s post, etc) here: http://is.gd/jJXy
I was dealing with (professional) pictures for a while now, and this is the reason I don’t agree with so many social networks like Facebook, Flickr and others, because they can use any picture uploaded without any assent. This is a good moment to think about.
I was dealing with (professional) pictures for a while now, and this is the reason I don’t agree with so many social networks like Facebook, Flickr and others, because they can use any picture uploaded without any assent. This is a good moment to think about.
If you join a site whose TOS includes includes the ability to change the TOS later… and most social networks have language similar to this… you agreed to pretty much anything.
If you join a site whose TOS includes includes the ability to change the TOS later… and most social networks have language similar to this… you agreed to pretty much anything.
“Truth is it doesn’t matter.” – Robert Scoble. B.S. to that, big time.
http://twitter.com/andrewbaron/status/1219010436
“Truth is it doesn’t matter.” – Robert Scoble. B.S. to that, big time.
http://twitter.com/andrewbaron/status/1219010436
Yes, but your giving them away on facebook. You give them pretty much all rights a copyright holder has.
Yes, but your giving them away on facebook. You give them pretty much all rights a copyright holder has.
We agree with you Scobleizer. Why is everyone getting their “knickers in a knot?” If you use an intermediation service of course they observe and control what you send them.
If you want privacy use a P2P application instead of web 2.0.