Simon Edmondson Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 "out of the Facebook's terms of use: "For content protected by intellectual property rights, for example. photos or video clips (protected content), you give us the following permission explicitly, in accordance with your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, vidarelicensierbar, royalty free, worldwide licence to use all protected content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (content license). " Might be good to think about before even the photo pops up in someone's ad somewhere ... wondering also what "or" stands for. Material on the Web that you linked to?" A Swedish friend highlighted this today. has anyone fallen foul of it ? simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted March 14, 2013 Hash Fellow Share Posted March 14, 2013 Drunk girls beware! Your mirror self pics could end up in a whiskey ad! I don't know if there's really a case that they've ever used something except perhaps to demonstrate what people put on Facebook anyway. If I post a link to my animated feature does that mean they can take and sell it? Maybe? I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bigboote Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 they lost me on 'vidarelicensierbar"... I tried playing that in Words with Friends once... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Edmondson Posted March 14, 2013 Author Share Posted March 14, 2013 Drunk girls beware! Your mirror self pics could end up in a whiskey ad! I don't know if there's really a case that they've ever used something except perhaps to demonstrate what people put on Facebook anyway. If I post a link to my animated feature does that mean they can take and sell it? Maybe? I don't know. That would be a concern wouldn't it? If you posted something that got spread widely and you had sweated blood on to find FB had appropriated it. Steam might rise ! simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higginsdj Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 Therein lies their problem - if I link to something from my facebook page or use something on my facebook page that I do not own then I can not grant permission under these conditions for the unconditional use of that thing. Second, just because they say they can it has to be applied under law in the country of the owner of the interllectual right (and thats where this will be tested under law) and in some countries, these rights are not so easily transfered - by law. Its a bit like those retail stores that say "choose carefully we do not refund". Under law they are required to refund (at least here in Australia) so it doesn't matter what they say. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hash Fellow robcat2075 Posted March 14, 2013 Hash Fellow Share Posted March 14, 2013 I think a clause like that is to cover themselves in a Justin Bieber situation where someone posts stuff and then hits it big. Youtube has a similar clause and can promote that angle to his success without him demanding to get paid every time they mention his name. But they haven't stolen any of his songs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamikaze Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 I always have to laugh at these type of agreements .... there are reasons why they do this ... but , they can not use anything that "by law" they have no written contract to do so .... oh and signed in front of a notary .... use to be you could sign away your rights .... remember when John Fogerty could not play his own songs in public ? he can now ! the laws that applied to him now being able to play them again apply to an assortment of (non legal binding ) fine print.... but it still does not stop companys from including these legally "un upholdable" notices... Oh and Ebay has a slew of these notices/agreements that my Wife challenged and WON! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 The internet: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuchur Posted March 14, 2013 Share Posted March 14, 2013 This is known for quite some time now... I wrote in my blog about that issue. See you *Fuchur* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Edmondson Posted March 15, 2013 Author Share Posted March 15, 2013 I always have to laugh at these type of agreements .... there are reasons why they do this ... but , they can not use anything that "by law" they have no written contract to do so .... oh and signed in front of a notary .... use to be you could sign away your rights .... remember when John Fogerty could not play his own songs in public ? he can now ! the laws that applied to him now being able to play them again apply to an assortment of (non legal binding ) fine print.... but it still does not stop companys from including these legally "un upholdable" notices... Oh and Ebay has a slew of these notices/agreements that my Wife challenged and WON! A musician friend of mine sent me the following, "YouTube, sound cloud, MySpace, they all mention in the small print they have rights to your uploads. YouTube sold HSBC a track a of a hang drum being played." I don't know the particular details of that case but the implications are rather daunting if you were using YT or FB to try to raise some interest for a project you were working on. regards simon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*A:M User* Roger Posted March 18, 2013 *A:M User* Share Posted March 18, 2013 "out of the Facebook's terms of use: "For content protected by intellectual property rights, for example. photos or video clips (protected content), you give us the following permission explicitly, in accordance with your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, vidarelicensierbar, royalty free, worldwide licence to use all protected content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (content license). " Might be good to think about before even the photo pops up in someone's ad somewhere ... wondering also what "or" stands for. Material on the Web that you linked to?" A Swedish friend highlighted this today. has anyone fallen foul of it ? simon This seems like BS. Seems very much like they want to have their cake and eat it, too. Like they want to own what you post in addition to making money being a data mining operation and serving up ads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
largento Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I seem to recall a story that may explain this. Facebook uses your image to advertise to your friends. Say, if you hit the Like button on McDonald's Facebook page, then they could use an image of you that appears on your friends' news feed along with the message that you like McDonald's. Of course, McDonald's is paying for the ad, but Facebook claims it's helpful to you, because you really want to know what your friends like. :-) They only use your profile photo for it and it follows your security settings. (i.e. if you have yours set not to allow friends of friends to see your photos, they won't see this.) As far as I know, the only way to opt-out of this is to not like any commercial business. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.