Slashdot Mirror
Facebook Lets Advertisers Use Pictures Without Permission
Krokz sends in an LA Times piece that begins "A warning is bouncing through cyberspace today, landing on the Facebook statuses of many of the social networking site's users. The message: 'Facebook has agreed to let third party advertisers use your posted pictures without your permission.' It continues with a prescription of how you can protect your photos." The attention-grabbing incident in this furor involved a married woman, whose photo appeared in an ad for a dating service that was presented to her husband to view. Fortunately, both husband and wife had a sense of humor about it.
Apart from goatse, I don't have any pictures on facebook.
:wq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It seems at this point like Facebook's plan was to make itself an indispensable part of millions of people's lives and then abuse them like this because they know most users still won't quit.
Man who continually stands in the middle of the road is hit by a car. Seriously, what are these people expecting when they sign up to a site like Facebook?
unless facebook has you sign a proper model release form, i can't see how this kind of use is going to hold up.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Read the terms of service.
When you sign up you agree to the terms of service, which clearly says you grant Facebook an unlimited, worldwide licence to use anything you post on Facebook. Unfortunately, no reads it!
Mod up please. /. really should check snopes/company blogs before posting summaries like this... :-/
Computer Science is all about trying to find the right wrench to bang in the right screw. -T.Cumbo?
Ok, you heard it here first - Anonymous Coward for thinks Stayfree Maxi Pads are the best [insert pic]
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
The ad network misbehavior that fueled this rumor was covered by VentureBeat in early June, when these networks were banned by Facebook.
Hey, that's Anonymous Cowardon to you pal!!
What Mark Zuckerberg really means is:
We have banned the third party applications responsible for exploiting the privacy of our userbase, because we reserve the right to exploit their privacy OURSELVES".
After all, there IS an option for this in the user settings, so its eems pretty clear that they either already do something similar or intend to in the future. The response from facebook is nothing more than Apple kicking an application out of their iphone app store, because they want to introduce their own version of it and make the money for themselves.
Okay, first off, the article has a follow-up posted at the top of it saying they made a mistake and were corrected. But for the interest of people who would rather read comments than articles, here's what I've been telling everyone on Facebook who keeps passing around this foolishness:
First off, the claim that Facebook is allowing 3rd party advertisers to use people's photos isn't quite the case. In fact, Facebook Terms of Service (http://www.facebook.com/terms.php) state (section 10.2) "We do not give your content to advertisers."
Yes, Facebook may pair up your name and profile photo with an ad that gets sent to your friends, and yes, that can be blocked with the option mentioned in the message going around (Settings->Privacy->"News Feed and Wall"->"Facebook Ads" and select "No One" - or this link might work to get you there faster, since I'm feeling useful http://www.facebook.com/privacy/?view=feeds&tab=ads )
This is not, however, 3rd party advertisers using your photo. Section 15 of the advertising guidelines for Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/ad_guidelines.php) state that an ad won't even be accepted if the advertiser is using photos for which they don't own copyright.
Now for the useful: A Facebook application that has not been authorized by you or a friend cannot access any information about you other than what's in your public search listing. This means, though, that if you have a public search listing displaying your photo, an unscrupulous advertiser could get your profile photo.
Any application you have authorized will be able to access information it requires to work. Definition of "requires to work" may vary. If you play a lot of 3rd party Facebook games, or do a lot of those quizzes going around, remember to check the Privacy Policies and Terms of Use for the application if your worried (or if you're really worried, don't do them).
Any application your friends have authorized may be able to access any information about you (on behalf of your friend) that your friend can access. To limit what the applications can see, go to Settings->Privacy->Applications and go to the Settings tab (or have another link http://www.facebook.com/privacy/?view=platform&tab=other ).
http://www.allfacebook.com/2009/07/downloadsquad-and-facebook-users-get-confused-about-facebooks-advertising-policy/ pointed out what more likely happened and downloadsquad corrected their position.
And apparently, as jdigital noted already, even the official facebook blog says that's what happened. So yeah, if you've posted stuff online, somebody may take it and abuse it.. but no, it wasn't Facebook's doing in this case. RTF....Retraction?
So please Facebook, just put all the creative commons license choices on there, and the problem is solved
If you read the entire blog post you'll see that they describe that option fully. When enabled, it lets your friends see whether you have joined a Fan or Group page. Completely tame and clearly explained.
:wq ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
They do actually have a Privacy option, opted in by default, entitled "Appearance in Facebook Ads". I could forgive users for believing that this option, if set on, allowed them to, well, appear in Facebook Ads. The explanatory text isn't particularly clear, either:
It sounds like they're using something from your profile in Facebook ads shown to your friends, and it certainly doesn't explicitly rule out using your photos when they have you "appear[] in your friends' Facebook Ads".
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
As usual with Facebook controversies, you can very easily opt out of this and never have your photo used by an advertiser.
You can't just assume you have permission - any contract like this must be opt in.
And of course, Facebook is not mandatory, it's something that you choose to be part of.
What if the terms are changed retroactively, to photos you already uploaded?
What if you're not on Facebook and someone uploads a photo of you, that then gets used in an advert?
And of course, why in hell do so many people post illegal or embarrassing items to a fairly public and insecure site?
Off-topic. There are plenty of photos I might not mind being visible to a restricted set of people (Facebook photos don't have to be "public" FYI), but would mind being in an advertising campaign. In fact, even if I was okay with a photo being entirely public, doesn't mean I want it in an advertising campaign.
(This assumes that the story is true - if it isn't, then there's nothing to worry over anyway.)
Why don't they say that, then? By wording it as blanket permission for "Appearance in Facebook Ads", it certainly carries an implication that you're giving them permission (opted in by default) to use your likeness in Facebook ads.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Okay. This is "better" in the sense that it is not Facebook itself exploiting user pictures. But it's still bothersome on some level. In particular it's bothersome that Facebook's default privacy rules make this possible. It seems that enabling an application gives that application near-limitless access to a person's account. It's all well and good that Facebook's policies forbid this, and that they've retroactively done something about it. But why was the access there in the first place?
I do think users need to take some responsibility. They should be more careful about the text and photos they upload to some company's servers, and the applications they enable. But still it seems that Facebook is way too permissive with privacy and security settings, and that they are continually pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable with respect to advertising. For instance, why is it that when you go: SETTINGS > PRIVACY SETTINGS > NEWS FEEDS AND WALL, the "Appearance in Facebook Ads" is by default enabled. You need to manually turn it off. Yes it's up to users to manage their privacy settings, but having users continually being opted-in to these kinds of things (without any particular announcement, that I'm aware of) smacks of "let's see what we can get away with--and apologize only if we have to...".
Careful there, you're almost treading on my new handle!
What if someone else posts a picture in which you are present? Odds are that you have been to a family or social gathering at which someone has a camera, and has later uploaded the photographs. Avoid Facebook all you like, but if friends and family use it you are likely to end up on there whether you like it or not.
> What if someone else posts a picture in which you are present?
What if the New York Times puts a photo with you in it on their front page? The photographer owns the copyright.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
"Frankly, after all the very public warnings about facebook I have no sympathy for anyone foolish enough to use their service."
That's why I post my personal pics to 4chan where they will be respected!
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
If you're now bored of Slashdot
Because your posts are always wrong
Why not spend your time on there
posting lyrics of old songs.
So while you should be sleeping,
or reading papers in bed
you confuse people normal people
who aren't completely brain dead.
"If you like Pina Coladas
And getting caught in the rain
then you're pretty simple
and you've got half a brain
If you like making love at midnight,
In the dunes of the cape.
Then you're just too specific
And I'd question if you're sane."
I think the depth of those tossed off lyrics touch all of our hearts. Remember when you have no opinions of your own then lyrics are just as good.
Give a cowhardon a break!
Sounds painful - real painful
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Actually no. If you find one of your photos used in an ad, contact that company asking for $30,000.00 for use of the photo.
If they dont, Pull a DMCA takedown on their ass via their ISP.
Honesty, people need to use the same scumbag tactics these companies use.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
...what if you go for a job and they recognise you from a site you have nothing to do with called bustedpartysluts.com?
If I recognize an applicant from bustedpartysluts.com, she's almost certainly going to be hired.
http://rs79.vrx.net/.oops/yixe/
Here's where I found my face on an ad on slashdot in late may. Using liknesses for commercial purposes requires a model release and this is actionable. Anybody feel like doing a class action?
Need Mercedes parts ?
Where do I sign?
The biggest reason that facebook et al need to be pursued on this, is not just the theft of image but, far more importantly the theft of your honesty and integrity. By using your image, they are implying that you approve of and recommend the product that your image is attached to. It is very much a theft of who you are. So not a copyright infringement but a fraudulent misrepresentation, it really is one of the worst 'marketing' abuses I have ever come across.
That facebook would stoop this low is a real warning to users or more accurately as it turns out, the used of facebook, time to shift locations, things are bound to get worse as try push to monetise - 'you'.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
"What is your photo doing on an on-line dating site?"
"Honey. What ate you doing looking through on-line dating sites?"
Have gnu, will travel.
MOO!
http://www.motivatedphotos.com/?id=567
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
This is the real problem with Facebook. They've cleverly engineered a system which *allows* you to control your privacy but then seduces or fools you into giving it up by making settings so obtuse, difficult to find and anticipate that almost nobody successfully does.
Example: I thought I had my facebook settings locked down pretty good. I turned off access of just about everything to anybody except direct friends. A few months later, my birthday comes around and all my friends start sending me happy birthday messages via Facebook! Turns out, there is / was a completely different location for the control of your birth date privacy. Not only did my friends see my birthday, but half of them had installed some kind of 'notify about your friends birthday' application so my birth date (something used commonly as security verification data) was now spread into some unknown number of 3rd party applications around the globe. There is basically no way to know now who on the planet might have gathered my birth date, be correlating it with other data and on selling it for the purposes of identity theft. It's just one small example, but this is everywhere in Facebook.
Of course. The hardon is FOR the cow, you insensitive clod!
What's worse are some of the reactions in discussions on facebook this week. There are a lot of idiots who comment that "who cares if they use my image for commercials or whatever?!".
It's amazing how little the current generation of young people care about their brand, their imaging, their right to own their data and information, and being compensated for utilization of their likeness. After all, if it's worth it to the advertiser to use your information or likeness, then IT HAS VALUE and you should be compensated for it.
I almost find the lack of concern for what was initially purported to be the actions happening more vile than the purported actions themselves.
You see advertisements? Why aren't you using adblock like the rest of us?
Until this whole ordeal, I didn't even realize Facebook *had* ads.
You know cows are female?
Not only female, but Adult Females who have already given birth to 1-2 Calves (depending on region).
As always, XKCD has the answer.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Indeed. Don't click the link in grandparent's post! Morbid curiosity inspired me to do so, and I regret it, as for the first time in a very long while a website did things which made me seriously reconsider Firefox's security. I should have heeded AC's warning -- or at least disabled Javascript.
For instance, somehow this website even manages to get Firefox to spawn Internet Explorer windows, and Windows mail (to check some newsgroup). Does Firefox have some really stupid URL handlers enabled by default? I had been reasonably sure I'd disabled this kind of crap in about:config (doublechecks... yeah, looks ok...). If that's true then Firefox out of the box is only as secure as the worst application it uses to handle any kind of URL. And as Internet Explorer now seems to be one of them, that would make Firefox no more secure than Internet Explorer. A frightening thought! So what's going on?
This is bullshit, as usual, you can disable this. It's in the privacy settings. If you leave it open your friends see you as an advertisement. No news here, move along....
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
Interesting guess but I don't think so. One of the other 4 poeple is somebody I know, the other two I'd never seen before. That had to have come from the adserver. I'm guessing they all did.
I know what I agreed to when I clicked the thinger in facebook. You show me where is says personal likeness in commercial conduct is authorized.
Oh yeah, Jenine is Nat Torkington's wife. She's pissed. And she's not somebody you want pissed at you.
Need Mercedes parts ?
I believe the defaults should be set to the most private setting, and allow users to SHARE their stuff. Facebook does it the other way round, they say all your stuff is public unless you specifically disallow it. How is that fair? Its an open abuse of people's right to privacy, and for the (hopefully brief) time between the change and when the user realises and updates their privacy settings, facebook has had a field day with your personal details.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.