Your Face Will Soon Be In Facebook Ads

jfruhlinger writes "If you're planning on checking into Starbucks using Facebook Places, your friends may soon see your profile picture in a Facebook ad for Starbucks — and, it goes without saying, you won't be paid a dime. You can't opt out, unless, as Dan Tynan puts it, "studiously avoid clicking "Like" or checking into any place that has a six- or seven-figure ad budget." The ad will also include whatever text you use in your checkin, so Tynan suggests some judicious pranksterism ("Just checked into the Starbucks around the corner and this doppio mocha latte tastes like goat urine")."

Comments

Correct Article Link

[WrongSizeGlass]

Correct article link

Re:Where is Diaspora?

[dominion]

Appleseed is open source, distributed social networking, built on a commodity stack, and installs in a few minutes on any LAMP compatible host.

Code is available here:
http://github.com/appleseedproj/appleseed

Appleseed has a main beta site, appleseedproject.org, and approx. 150 test nodes out in the wild. If you'd like an invite, just email invite@appleseedproject.org. It's still in beta, but new features are added regularly.

We've also been fundraising, if you'd like to donate, our fundraising ends in only 4 days, but every little bit counts:

http://www.indiegogo.com/Open-Source-Social-Networking

Here is our roadmap for the future:

http://opensource.appleseedproject.org/roadmap/

Diaspora is also available, here is their github. They are running on Ruby + Rails, and they were MongoDB based, but recently switched to MySQL.

https://github.com/diaspora/diaspora

Re:My Face

[Anonymous Coward]

copyright is jointly held by the person taking the photograph and the person represented

No it isn't. Absent a contract saying something different, the photographer owns the copyright. End of story.

Image rights are quite different and only exist in a very few jurisdictions (and not the UK, which I get the impression you're from).

Re:My Face

[vmxeo]

Not quite. The photographer holds the copyright. People in the pictures have a right to publicity, but its considered separate from the actual copyright on the photo. Like in the Virgin Mobile case, they legally had the copyright but did not have consent from the model, aka "right to publicity".

You can opt out, and you do agree to it

[Corbets]

Not to jump on anyone's nerd rage too early in the process, but according to Facebook's terms and conditions (easily found via a Google search, but here's a direct link: http://www.facebook.com/terms.php) you do explicitly allow them to use your profile picture in advertising by using their service. Read point 10 - it directly states that you give that permission.

Note that it also says that you can opt out. So regardless of what this fear-mongering ITWorld article says, I would fully expect to retain that capacity. It's not even new - I saw friends pictures appearing in "friend finder" ads long ago, and figured out how to opt out. All that's changing is they're going to sell that service to 3rd parties now.

True, in theory

[spun]

Most photo studios such as Olin Mills will claim copyright on any photos they take of you. Yes, it is in the contract, but most people don't realize that. I tried having an Olin Mills picture of my mom copied for her memorial. Nobody would do it unless I got express written permission from Olin Mills. I ended up cropping out the stupid "Olin Mills" signature and had no trouble copying it after that. But the amazing thing is that, apparently, Olin Mills and other photography studios have invested large sums of money telling every single copy-jockey in the country not to copy studio photographs. Even the copy counter at the local drugstore wouldn't do it, "Nope,see here where it says 'Olin Mills' at the bottom? Yeah, they own that picture of your dead mom for the next seventy years."