Beware Facebook new terms of service

Anything you choose you hand over to Facebook is not private. You aren't the customer, advertiser are the customer, you are the product.

Why do people not get this and act surprised that this gargantuan tech operation isn't run solely for their benefit on imaginary money?
 
Steve-T said:
This is a rather worrying development, it is all well and good saying ditch FB but for many it is now an integral part of their business and marketing.
Click to expand...

If you were to have any kind of photography business especially, these changes seem to allow Facebook to take and use your images with no recompense to you.

It may have been delayed, but it will probably come at some point. What FB seem to do is go to make big changes, relent because of the uproar, but change some small stuff later and get away with because it is not as bad as what they were going to do. :bang:

I don't have a business, but as soon as FB were talking about taking control of users images a few years ago, I deleted the few pictures I had posted. I don't even use my real name there as to keep my profile as low as possible.

Things you have to do when family are FB. :bang:
 
iirc this has been discussed before and shown to be largely crap.
 
Gave up FB a while ago,too many people get to know your business,glad to see the back of it.:)
 
Steve-T said:
This is a rather worrying development, it is all well and good saying ditch FB but for many it is now an integral part of their business and marketing.
Click to expand...

There isn't going to be much sympathy for those that use for nothing, social networky self promo type sites like FB & Flickr to make money.
 
I can't say I fully understand what Facebook want to do.

However, if it is the case that an advert seen by my friends sees me endorsing a product then I would have some serious concerns and might have to consider leaving fb.

The potential would exist that fb decide I like product X and produce am advert paid for by X showing my endorsement of that product. However, fb could so easily be mistaken about "my" endorsement of "X". That being the case the advert is misleading and must fall foul of advertising standards. Minefield
 
big soft moose said:
iirc this has been discussed before and shown to be largely crap.
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking.

The last time this came up it was pointed out that Facebook cannot just change the terms and conditions. Whatever they were when you signed up still applies unless changed by mutual consent.


Steve.
 
big soft moose said:
iirc this has been discussed before and shown to be largely crap.
Click to expand...

Steve Smith said:
That's what I was thinking.

The last time this came up it was pointed out that Facebook cannot just change the terms and conditions. Whatever they were when you signed up still applies unless changed by mutual consent.


Steve.
Click to expand...

indeed, pretty sure there was an opt out to have your photos excluded from facebooks adverts.
 
DrRusty said:
I can't say I fully understand what Facebook want to do.
Click to expand...

It's for when they put your name and profile photo next to paid content. You can opt out of being linked to "Facebook Ads" (which are adverts in the usual sense of internet advertising) but not "Sponsored Stories" which are things that would already appear on your account (like liking a page or joining an event) but the owner of the page/event/etcetera has paid for the story to have a higher priority in people's news feeds than it usually would.

Facebook have been doing this for years but they're rewording it now because they just had to pay $20m to some people who were suing them over it and promise to make what they were doing clearer. Changes or rewordings of Facebook terms is fantastic click bait for blogs and news sites so every time it happens they kick up a fuss to help their own ad revenue.
 
I looked at FB when it came out and thought then that here was an interesting product. It seemed benign and useful.

That said, it did not take long for the landscape of the product and so having received invites to view others' pages I found myself deleting everything and withdrawing from using it. Friends got snoty with me for not accepting invites so I closed my then Yahoo account.

Most of the friends I had who dropped their FB are still friends. I rarely hear from "friends" still on FB.

I always felt that a service you do not pay for leaves you with little redress when THE OWNERS decide to move things their way.

FB is now beyond critical mass for anyone to have the power to change things with the company IF they decide to scalp their users information.

I now take a view that if it does what you need then good for you. If you are content to spew the whole of your life onto FB to share the trivia of your life - thats your choice (a friend's 36 year old daughter uploads her activities onto her FB every 15 minutes which apparently includes her own guilt tripping about having a cake or biscuit with her coffee).

I personally don't give an ars* biscuit about FB. I have a finite number of seconds in my life and an addiction to FB does not fit in my lifeplan.

S
 
I do wonder what the courts would say if FB were brought to task for putting a shot of someone's kitten on a million tee shirts, but how likely is this to happen? On average, there are 300,000,000 pics uploaded to Facebook.

That's three hundred million photos... EVERY DAY.

I'd guess the odds of Mark Zuckerberg selling *yours* to Coke for their next world ad campaign are somewhat less than winning the lottery.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/17/facebook-photos-record/


Keep calm and carry on.
 
FaceBook makes enough money from advertising. They are not going to start selling peoples pictures for the comparatively meagre amounts they might get.

They certainly won't be selling pictures with recognisable people in as they don't have model releases for them.

I think it's all pointless paranoia - just like it was last time.


Steve.
 
joxby said:
There isn't going to be much sympathy for those that use for nothing, social networky self promo type sites like FB & Flickr to make money.
Click to expand...

Why? Would there be more sympathy if FB and Flickr required a subscription?
Copyright infringement is the same either way.

You can use paid for promotion on FB, would you sympathise more if they were using this when their images were stolen?
 
DazJW said:
Changes or rewordings of Facebook terms is fantastic click bait for blogs and news sites so every time it happens they kick up a fuss to help their own ad revenue.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the terms and conditions actually changed, all members would have to be sent a message informing of the change and asking them to agree to it or leave the site.

They can't just change them and not let anyone know.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
The American Society of Media Photographers has warned its members to 'beware' Facebook's proposed new terms of service, which - it claims - would allow the social media giant to 'exploit your name, likeness, content, images, private information, and personal brand by using it in advertising and in commercial and sponsored content - without any compensation to you'.
Click to expand...

DazJW said:
You can opt out of being linked to "Facebook Ads" (which are adverts in the usual sense of internet advertising) but not "Sponsored Stories" which are things that would already appear on your account (like liking a page or joining an event)
Click to expand...

The depressing answer is that if the changes are made official, there's nothing users can do directly, since according to the A.S.M.P. 'Facebook has specifically removed the language from their TOS that allows you to limit how your likeness, information, and content are associated with brands, commercial uses, or sponsored posts. They have also removed the clause that makes them subject to the privacy limits set in place by you on your profile.

'The A.S.M.P. suggests that members 'become informed', 'spread the word', and 'call for action' from other professional organizations with whom they work to 'ensure fair and respectful treatment of users by online services like Facebook and Instagram.'
Click to expand...

So if not enough people kick up a fuss, as always when one of these social network sites tries to take some of your rights, or exploit you (your name, likeness, content, images, private information, and personal brand by using it in advertising and in commercial and sponsored content) they will do what they want. :shrug:

And yes, there may be 300,000,000 pics uploaded each day, but it is not just pictures they are wanting to exploit, it is also your identity.

It's OK though, because it doesn't cost you anything. ;) :bang:
 
How, exactly, will my identity be exploited? And why would they wish to do this?
 
jon ryan said:
How, exactly, will my identity be exploited? And why would they wish to do this?
Click to expand...

'exploit your name, likeness, content, images, private information, and personal brand by using it in advertising and in commercial and sponsored content - without any compensation to you'.
Click to expand...

The Why? is easy, money. :shrug: As to how, I have no idea, but their terms of service seem to be changing for them to do stuff with your information 'without any compensation to you'.

And,
They have also removed the clause that makes them subject to the privacy limits set in place by you on your profile.
Click to expand...
you may or may not be able to opt out. :shrug:

But if you see it as no problem then fine, carry on. :)
 
jon ryan said:
I'll do my very best not to lose any sleep over this.
Click to expand...

Phew! Thank God for that, I didn't mean for anyone to lose any sleep. :)

It's just information, if you don't think it is a problem, and/or don't think it applies to you, then ignore it, same with any information you come across. :D
 
The only people who should care, are the very ones who actually use it a lot, and have probably used it to advertise and make money in the past. Much as i dislike it in general, i have used it this way. And use it to keep contact with family also.

People always bitch and moan about stuff they take for granted, as soon as theres even a slight hint of a chance someone somewhere might use their precious name. Get over it, nobody wants your stuffs. Just like those big ugly watermarks you use are pointless, because nobody wants your precious non unique images. Not when they can get same just by clicking next on the search.

We do like to feel all threatened and precious and worthy for no real reason these days. Us humans.
 
Fb don't offer a paid option to be ad free and not have personal information used. They've shot themselves in the foot as I've removed as much personal info out of my profile as possible and I'm assuming others will do the same.

Data protection is clear on use of personal data. If you opt out companies cannot pass it onto third parties so fb must have opt outs and respect them. Information commissioner should go after them if they don't.

I only use fb as lots of friends do and its the only way for most busy people to keep up with friends easily. If there was an alternative then I'd be using that.
 
Steve Smith said:
Exactly. If the terms and conditions actually changed, all members would have to be sent a message informing of the change and asking them to agree to it or leave the site.
Click to expand...

They did. At least, I got one, and I read it.

The choice is always there when the t&c change to delete the account if you don't accept the changes.
 
Cagey75 said:
Get over it, nobody wants your stuffs.
Click to expand...
Facebook obviously does or they wouldn't be making these changes. And they think they can make money out of it/you. :shrug:

srichards said:
Data protection is clear on use of personal data. If you opt out companies cannot pass it onto third parties so fb must have opt outs and respect them. Information commissioner should go after them if they don't.
Click to expand...

I think (though I could be wrong) Data Protection only applies to computers in this country. I doubt very much that FB keep their servers in and countries with strict Data and Tax laws. :shrug:

srichards said:
If there was an alternative then I'd be using that.
Click to expand...
There is email. ;) :lol:
 
Cagey75 said:
The only people who should care, are the very ones who actually use it a lot, and have probably used it to advertise and make money in the past. Much as i dislike it in general, i have used it this way. And use it to keep contact with family also.

People always bitch and moan about stuff they take for granted, as soon as theres even a slight hint of a chance someone somewhere might use their precious name. Get over it, nobody wants your stuffs. Just like those big ugly watermarks you use are pointless, because nobody wants your precious non unique images. Not when they can get same just by clicking next on the search.

We do like to feel all threatened and precious and worthy for no real reason these days. Us humans.
Click to expand...

Facebook style 'like'


Steve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top