Ultimately you have to take responsibility for your own choices and cannot force others to conform to your morals and ideals.
This is exactly why I don't post pictures of my son, myself or my wife online.
Honestly, I even get pissed when my friends post pictures of me on facebook.
The Public setting suddenly (as compared to the other privacy settings) granting Facebook's expansive license to everyone doesn't make sense to me. Gradually adding licensees as visibility is expanded would be consistent, as would not transferring the license on any setting, including Public.No, Facebook does not transfer the license; they don't need to and there is no reference to this anywhere in their TOS for non-public IP. Facebook is displaying the IP, not the 'other Facebook user.'
In Facebook, Liking or Sharing is re-displaying the original IP - it will link back to the original upload and will be displayed as belonging to the original uploader. Although you are controlling the display of this on your Timeline, you are not physically uploading IP or claiming that it is yours and hence do not need a license. Facebook is using their license to display the IP.
Facebook TOS, August 28, 2009
4. When you publish content or information using the "everyone" setting, it means that everyone, including people off of Facebook, will have access to that information and we may not have control over what they do with it.
I searched for Facebook TOS news stories around those dates, but I found only an EFF blog post about unrelated changes. Compared to the wide and extensive coverage of the February 2009 change rescinded after public outcry, this suggests that the modification, specifically the insertion of "use", was not especially material. I think this is a point against the interpretation that "use" implies transfer of the license.Facebook TOS, April 22, 2010
4. When you publish content or information using the "everyone" setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
I would disagree because of this:The Public setting suddenly (as compared to the other privacy settings) granting Facebook's expansive license to everyone doesn't make sense to me. Gradually adding licensees as visibility is expanded would be consistent, as would not transferring the license on any setting, including Public.
The "everyone"/Public item was added August 28, 2009, and modified April 22, 2010:
I searched for Facebook TOS news stories around those dates, but I found only an EFF blog post about unrelated changes. Compared to the wide and extensive coverage of the February 2009 change rescinded after public outcry, this suggests that the modification, specifically the insertion of "use", was not especially material. I think this is a point against the interpretation that "use" implies transfer of the license.
By "use" we mean use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of.
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
that is what makes this situation so hilarious
some teenage girl liked a few photos and edited/reposted
the likelihood of this action having any affect on texashiker or his family is very small. i mean, come on, this is facebook. and i highly doubt shes gonna make money off it or that texashiker is gonna lose any money. theres so much junk on that site, people will likely forget about the photos in 2-3 days, tops.
they could have said, "lol w/e", gone on their merry way and not been affected inrl. but they turned it into a ragefest which texashiker was kind enough to share with us all
maybe... his wife reads this forum and he is just afraid of her? :hmm:
Go read some of his comments on vaccines and evolution. He is mind-numbingly dense.This thread can be summed up with - TH is a fucking moron.
That was sloppy of me, especially since [post=33704566]you've quoted that definition before[/post]. It seems pretty boilerplate and predates the August 28, 2009 revision.I would disagree because of this:
By "use" we mean use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of.
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms
By "good argument", do you mean one with which you agree? If you agree, would you expand on that argument, why the Public item plus the definition of "use" implies a license transfer? I found a blog post, but the site doesn't seem especially trustworthy.If it was set as "public," I can see a good argument made for such a transfer.