Intellectual Property issue on facebook last night

[sixone]

Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

Where's the part where Facebook transfers said license to any third party? The TOS does not make any such transfer.

 

[GoSharks]

Where's the part where Facebook transfers said license to any third party? The TOS does not make any such transfer.

If it was set as "public," I can see a good argument made for such a transfer.
Consider:

By "use" we mean use, copy, publicly perform or display, distribute, modify, translate, and create derivative works of.

(We all know what the "public" exception says by now so I won't quote it again.)

 

[Newbian]

I think everyone is losing site of the real issue here.

Pics of the 15 year old girl?

Check facebook for it as everyone is posting the picture it sure sounds like.

 

[sixone]

If it was set as "public," I can see a good argument made for such a transfer.
Consider:

(We all know what the "public" exception says by now so I won't quote it again.)

Then why bother with this?

http://www.facebook.com/legal/copyright.php?howto_report

Our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities prohibits users from posting content that violates another party's intellectual property rights. When we receive a valid notice of IP infringement, we promptly remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing content. We also terminate the accounts of repeat infringers in appropriate circumstances.

They seem to be making it quite clear that reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material requires more permission than what's provided in the TOS.

 

[jagec]

Then why bother with this?

http://www.facebook.com/legal/copyright.php?howto_report



They seem to be making it quite clear that reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material requires more permission than what's provided in the TOS.

To protect THEM from users posting pictures that they gank from other websites (and the subsequent DMCA drama). Re-posting pictures that you find on Facebook is A-OK.

It is truly disturbing that you can't seem to understand this.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Then why bother with this?

http://www.facebook.com/legal/copyright.php?howto_report



They seem to be making it quite clear that reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material requires more permission than what's provided in the TOS.

It's quite clear you don't understand what you posted. I suggest suing Facebook and maybe after you spend thousands of dollars in legal fees, you'll soon comprehend what you posted. But keep on trolling b/c you are WRONG.

 

[Sho'Nuff]

based on the language, I think it depends on the privacy setting when the post was created - public or something else.

Facebook's terms of use pertain to a contract between facebook and a user. Facebook cannot create contracts between multiple users, because their is no offer and acceptance between the relevant parties, i.e., the two users. Rather, their would be an offer between Facebook and one user. Basic contract law says no K. Ergo, facebook's terms say nothing with respect to whether an individual using its service gives up intellectual property rights in his/her images to other users.

It could be argued that by posting something in a public forum (e.g., a public website), a party has implicitly granted visitors to that site the right to copy and use their work. I'm sure there are arguments the other way, but I don't specialize in copyright law so I'm not sure how successful those arguments are.

 

[GoSharks]

Re-posting pictures that you find on Facebook is A-OK.

I believe that this is false, save for the "public" exception where you can argue that you do have a license.

 

[Jaskalas]

And you know how you stop it? DON'T UPLOAD TO FACEBOOK

shit seems easy to me.

When facebook is a very large target for marketing... I begin to understand the OP.

 

[Rifter]

What were the privacy setting of the account that posted the pic? If it was public you are screwed. If not public then you are in the right and could probably sue and win, at least thats how i interpet the TOS.

/thread

 

[LurkerPrime]

you should clearly post a cease-and-desist letter on the persons wall

 

[sourceninja]

Facebook's terms of use pertain to a contract between facebook and a user. Facebook cannot create contracts between multiple users, because their is no offer and acceptance between the relevant parties, i.e., the two users. Rather, their would be an offer between Facebook and one user. Basic contract law says no K. Ergo, facebook's terms say nothing with respect to whether an individual using its service gives up intellectual property rights in his/her images to other users.

It could be argued that by posting something in a public forum (e.g., a public website), a party has implicitly granted visitors to that site the right to copy and use their work. I'm sure there are arguments the other way, but I don't specialize in copyright law so I'm not sure how successful those arguments are.

That's where the terms " transferable, sub-licensable" come into play in their TOS. They are sub-licensing the right for people who can see your photos on facebook to use your photos. It's really a basic requirement for facebook to exist.

 

[Fausto]

It cracks me up that our resident Paranoid Gun Nut Survivalist Guy is even on facebook, much less having a fit about "intellectual property". ATOT will be a dark, boring place the day his ability to contradict himself in a spectacular manner ceases.

 

[1sikbITCH]

If you found your pictures posted on other websites, you would probably need to have your lawyer file the necessary paperwork to try to stop the infringement. Since it happened on Facebook you seem to expect Facebook to do it for you. And that seems unlikely to happen.

Lucky for you, you're in Texas. If you can't afford a lawyer, you can just shoot the girl stealing your pics.

 

[dabuddha]

How do you figure the image belonged to facebook?

When you upload an image or video to a website like youtube or facebook, you grant the site non-exclusive rights to the material.

When you upload a video or image to a site, you do not release your Intellectual Property rights. You retain ownership of the material.




Where is your car or truck parked at right now? Is it where the public can see it? Would it be ok if someone took your car/suv/truck without permission?

Could you come up with an analogy that's relevant and non-retarded?

Like others have told youost in public, expect the public to use it.

 

[Texashiker]

I dare Texashiker and Sixone to sue Facebook on this matter. Please let us know how it turns out.

Sue facebook? For what? Are you stupid or something?

This is about retaining control of someone property.

Could you come up with an analogy that's relevant and non-retarded?

Like others have told youost in public, expect the public to use it.

Park your car in a public place, expect people to use it. That is what most of the people are saying in this thread.

Whether its a car, video, picture,,, you retain ownership regardless of where its parked.

What were the privacy setting of the account that posted the pic? If it was public you are screwed.

Music broadcast over the airwaves is public property?

When the local radio station plays a song, I can record that song and use it for anything I want?

 

[darkewaffle]

I think this situation would more fittingly be called "pixel property" than "intellectual property" because there's not a goddamned thing intellectual about it.

 

[clamum]

Holy fucking christ. I really hope you're trolling, otherwise you're a fucking MORON. Seriously if I was you I'd never come back to this site again. How embarrassing. LOLLERSKATES.

 

[Fausto]

Holy fucking christ. I really hope you're trolling, otherwise you're a fucking MORON. Seriously if I was you I'd never come back to this site again. How embarrassing. LOLLERSKATES.

Hi, I see you've met Texashiker. No, he's not trolling, he's really this stupid.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Sue facebook? For what? Are you stupid or something?

This is about retaining control of someone property.

The only stupid people in this thread are you and sixone. Why make this thread if you believe FB isn't doing anything wrong? Oh wait, you're just need attention. So, instead of reporting the pics/people to FB or complain to FB about their polices you come here to make an fool of yourself for like the 100th time.

 

[Texashiker]

Holy fucking christ. I really hope you're trolling, otherwise you're a fucking MORON. Seriously if I was you I'd never come back to this site again. How embarrassing. LOLLERSKATES.

I guess you are like a lot of people in this thread, and have never produced anything you would like to protect.

Hi, I see you've met Texashiker. No, he's not trolling, he's really this stupid.

What makes an amateur content producer any different the warner brothers, disney or universal pictures, besides the amount and quality of the content.

Why is it ok for for a company like disney to protect their property, but a person can not protect theirs?

The only stupid people in this thread are you and sixone. Why make this thread if you believe FB isn't doing anything wrong?

I never said facebook was doing anything wrong, its the people who do not respect property rights that are at the center of the issue.

 

[lupi]

Lol facebook lol

 

[PimpJuice]

Where is your car or truck parked at right now? Is it where the public can see it? Would it be ok if someone took your car/suv/truck without permission?

LOL, you are a complete moron if that is your argument. Comparing fair use of public images to auto theft. I knew you were stupid, but didn't know you were this dumb.

Let me make it clear for you.

If I parked my car in a public place, it is completely legal for someone to make a copy of it.

If I post my pictures in a public place, it is completely legal for someone to make a copy of it.

 

[dainthomas]

I guess you are like a lot of people in this thread, and have never produced anything you would like to protect.




What makes an amateur content producer any different the warner brothers, disney or universal pictures, besides the amount and quality of the content.

Why is it ok for for a company like disney to protect their property, but a person can not protect theirs?




I never said facebook was doing anything wrong, its the people who do not respect property rights that are at the center of the issue.

Not that it matters, but I don't suppose you had a copyright symbol on your grandkid's picture? People assume that when you upload something to facebook, it's OK to repost it. You know, since that's like the ENTIRE FUNCTION of facebook. But like I said before, if you did explicitly say the picture of your grandkid, dog, car, breakfast etc was copyrighted, then go ahead and sue the 15 yo for a bajillion dollars. Otherwise I don't really know what you're still whining about.

 

[Number1]

Could somebody PM me his facebook page. I would like to Photoshop a few pictures.

Ill post them here.