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

My Face

[Stargoat]

My Face won't. Why on earth should I care about anyone's opinion who isn't on Slashdot?

Re:My Face

[TheRaven64]

There's an important difference. If you upload a photograph of yourself, then you have agreed to Facebook's T&Cs, which gives them a transferable, commercial, license to use them as they wish. If you upload a photograph of someone else, this does not apply because copyright is jointly held by the person taking the photograph and the person represented.

This means that Facebook would be violating copyright for commercial purposes if they used a photograph of someone other than the person who uploaded it. The person pictured would have standing to sue them for copyright infringement. Facebook could then (potentially, depending on the T&Cs) sue the person who uploaded the photograph for uploading something without the legal right to do so, but I doubt they'd consider suing their users to be good business.

Or..

[js3]

You could avoid using facebook altogether.

Re:Or..

[dkleinsc]

The key thing to realize about Facebook is that Facebook's customers are its advertisers and partners. Facebook users and their personal information are the product.

Not that there aren't other businesses out there doing much the same thing - Google, NBC, CNN, and Fox for starters.

Re:Or..

[ExKoopaTroopa]

"if it's free, you are the product"

The sort of person who uses Facebook Places...

[eric_brissette]

...probably also thinks it's extra cool that they get to be in a Starbucks ad.

dislike

[metageek]

that's the reason for the lack of a dislike button

Re:Doy?!

[hedwards]

While I agree with the sentiment, what this really demonstrates is that the expectation of privacy needs to be revised to provide some protection. It's one thing if your face ends up in an ad or in the newspaper because it was one in a crowd, and quite another when you're the only person in the picture and they used it without your expressed permission.

Fundamentally there's something wrong with a corporation as large as Starbucks being unable or unwilling to pay for models or get permission directly from the person whom they're wanting to feature.

Stop bashing Facebook

[mr1911]

To all those bashing Facebook saying it has no value: stop it.

Facebook is immensely valuable. No sociological study could be funded on such a scale to determine just how much crap people will put up with from a free service before they stop using the service.

But then the joke will be on those of us that value our privacy. I know too many people that would think it was fantastic having their picture used to promote Starbucks and would sell their soul to stay on Facebook.