Slashdot Mirror
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")."
I'm guessing my 'grey silhouette' default picture won't do them much good?
My Face won't. Why on earth should I care about anyone's opinion who isn't on Slashdot?
Hoist Number One and Number Six.
Whats the deal.... get it out there in the state its in.
The more people using it the better.
We've been waiting too long.
You could avoid using facebook altogether.
did you forget to take your meds?
"studiously avoid clicking "Like" or checking into any place..."
That's really quite easy. I'm doing it right now, in fact. I don't like the trend but this is silly FUD - doing nothing protects me, I have to make an effort to be used.
I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
The funny part about that is that if they DO use my likeness in a Starbucks advert and I find out about it, I'll make no bones telling everyone on FB how much I detest Starbucks coffee. Oddly enough, I'll drink coffee in any form except decaf and Starbucks.
Stupid Marketeering retards.
When politicians are involved, everyone loses.
Correct article link
Since /. editors couldn't be arsed to make sure the link worked, here's a working link.
...probably also thinks it's extra cool that they get to be in a Starbucks ad.
that's the reason for the lack of a dislike button
metageek
So if I do as they say to get my pic on an ad for Starbucks does that mean my profile pic will go up? Oh I do hope it is some computer randomly picking without human eyes checking. I got a buzz lightyear and some sexual innuendo, perfect for reminding you to get &^cked and go to Starbucks!
Sense there is no doubt that they will keep doing this to anyone and everyone, just put a positive spin on it. Instead of Starbucks using your face for free advertisement, your Facebook posts are being sponsored by Starbucks! You can go trolling with Starbucks logo always adorning your posts, the ever vigilant muse of overpriced caffeinated beverages giving you credence to bid your friends to come and partake. Whats That?!? Jerry is endorsing Mc Donald's? I must head over and eat some Big Macs because my Facebook friend has a huge golden M logo right next to his face!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. -- Isaac Asimov
Isn't this illegal in California? They have a law on the books that was lobbied into place by Hollywood, but it's vague enough to be applied to the average Joe. If so class action lawsuit in 5... 4.... 3...
If there was a real Starbucks ad that had some friend of mines photo and a smart ass status update about the joint I would probably hit the like button, then block that poster when they spam my feed.
http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=148452
and if some idiot takes a pic of you and posts ABOUT you, then 'have' you then with you help from you.
this is one danger. second-hand photo posting, so to speak.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
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.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
I'm sure all my friends will be happy to know that Mark, Jason, and Princess (or Ace, Dirk, and Agatha, depending on when you were born) enjoy Boulevard Beer. Maybe I'll mix it up and see if Boxy Brown might recommend Mafia Wars or something.
geeze, once again in actual english (sorry, my typing is getting worse by the year..)
"and if some idiot takes a pic OF you and/or posts ABOUT you, they now 'have you' without any help directly from you."
once names and photos are 'linked' its probably impossible to unlink. again, all passively without your say-so.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
my facebook profile pics to rageguy
I'm reminded of when Vodafone, like so many others before it, decided to put an unedited twitter feed on its site following a hashtag for some launch or something. Usually this just leads to a lot of piss-takes but in this instance it became a nonstop expose on their £3Bn tax dodge and the subsequent slap on the wrist from a government that claimed we all had to pitch in and knuckle down to get out of the recession.
So I guess, if you see a company actually doing this, make sure anything you say about them on Facebook is pejorative.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
As an arachnophobe myself I have 4 questions for you :
When are the Red Spiders coming ?
How many of them are they ?
How big are they ?
How can we kill them ?
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
If Facebook or Starbucks cannot show me either a model release with my signature on it, or a place where I specifically authorized the use of my image in advertising, then if my picture appears in a Starbucks ad somebody will be looking at a pretty significant lawsuit.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
There's something wrong with a corporation that charges $10 for a cup of coffee, too. This is nothing new.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Funny, I thought the law was quite clear about needing explicit permission to use one's likeness for advertising. I believe it's referred to as personality rights, or more specifically in the US, right to publicity. Failure to do so can result in a lawsuit for invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness and/or violation of the right of publicity.
Though I'm sure FB is already prepared to update its terms of use to allow this kind of use, no doubt by dangling useless "Facebook credits" in front of the users to get them to sign...
(IANAL, but have worked enough with commercial photography to know you always need a release for this kind of use in advertising)
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
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.
That is not the point. They want _everybody_ to feature in their ads, so your everybody's friends will think you strongly recommend starbucks (which is very unlikely if you ever had _real_ coffee or cheescake)
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.
They don't want to pay for anonymous models. They want all your friends to know you go to Starbucks in the hopes that subconsciously it will make them more likely to go next time they want coffee -- they are using the ads as a form of reference -- "I like Starbucks, you should check it out."
As for getting your permission, you opted in to Facebook, so you gave FB permission to do whatever they want with anything you put there. While it feels more intrusive because it's your face on the screen, it's not really much different (on a technical level) than a company selling your email and contact info to affiliates.
Asking people to stop bashing Facebook is about as likely as asking the addicts to stop using it. But is asking someone to stop asking others to stop bashing the service likely? Stay tuned~
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
That's how things used to be done.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Goatse Guy! Is that you?!
Have gnu, will travel.
$10 for a cup of coffee???? I didn't know the warm, brown liquid that was sold at Starbucks was actually "coffee". Now, if I want a cup or warmed up, caffeinated, over sweet yak urine...
You put your own picture up as your avatar?
What a fucking noob thing to do. Slap the shit out of yourself!
Okay let me help. Log out of your profile. Now go make another one under the name Turd Ferguson. Post stupid picture as your avatar. Friend your real friends. Now you can relax because you're no longer a damn fool.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
If they use your photo for advertising without your permission you can sue them. They know that. That's why they will use only the profile photos (I predict that they will back down from that).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
There's something wrong with a corporation that charges $10 for a cup of coffee, too. This is nothing new.
I'm not aware of any drink at Starbucks that costs $10 no matter what size you get, unless you keep adding extra shots until you get to $10 for the total. I'm pretty sure you'd need about 10 add-shots minimum to accomplish that.
While I agree with the sentiment, what this really demonstrates is that the expectation of privacy needs to be revised to provide some protection.
Sure, but it's not going to happen. What I think is required is, if everyone can navigate our own data, we want to navigate the data of corporate and government employees, too.
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Facebook has your express permission to so use your profile picture.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
No wonder they only make friends on computers. Oh, wait...
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.
What if these images are used by some dating site? That could have a whole lot of unpleasant consequences. And I don't even mean anything nasty, just some eHarmony or match.com kind of site. They totally do need some fresh faces for their web ads, and they cannot use their customers for this (unless they pay them - and Facebook faces will probably be very competitive).
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I would conceivably pay $10 for a cup where I've been shown that everything has been done perfectly from the growing location, to cultivating, to roasting, to grinding, to brewing. The beans would probably be Kona, and the roasting process would have been meticulously tweaked to perfection.
If it's just any old beans with some frothy milk added, then no. These days, a $1 McDonald's coffee is perfectly good for when I forget to buy more beans or I'm too rushed to do it myself.
That said, the donotwant tag on this story is inappropriate. This is the best news urban mischief makers could have had. A few Guy Fawkes masks should be enough to shut down this idea forever.
Not a typewriter
You can't opt out, unless...
You can easily opt out. Account menu, Account Settings, Deactivate. Done, your opted out.
Oh, you could also just NOT "check in" from every stupid location you go to!
there is no spoon. or fork. there is a butter knife, and it's dull.
Seeing as how Canada's already taken Facebook to task for their disregard for our privacy laws it'll be interesting how this plays out up here. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a click box doesn't constitute a legal model release form in this country.
I have nothing compelling to say
Talk about insensitive. Goat Urine in the national drink of Elbonia. The diabetic goat produces the sweet effluent we revere in our village. It is easily caramelized into cakes and turned into a hearty liqueur with an infectiously alluring aroma. The idea of a hot milk drink approaching this ambrosia is blasphemy.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
and it seems to have stayed deleted. So that's still an option.
I'm not too worried about this. They can only do it once, then all my friends will de-friend me because they think I like Starbucks.
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."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
new slogans?
Facebook: because you're too dumb to own a website and manage rss feeds.
Twitter: because you're too dumb to get into an irc channel.
web2.0: because you're too dumb to notice that internet should be made of protocols not sites.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
I think you gave expressed permission by using the service. I use the service, and thus give permission. If you don't want them to have permission, don't use the service.
I think a bigger issue is that they change the terms of the service after-the-fact.
Sorry to be rude, but that isn't actual English either. There are dozens of mistakes in those three lines.
I understood it well enough, and I can only read English.
I also understood it fine, and I can neither read nor write in English.
I am not a crackpot.
Over the holidays my brother in law asked again why I did not have a Facebook account. I was in a rather pedantic mood so I gave him the rather technical accounting of why and he of course ignored that blather, and I suppose rightly so, and at one point said that he was going to make me an account.
Thankfully his ADD prevented him from following though with that but I realize now I need a new tactic when dealing with people who don't understand why Facebook 'is evil'. I need a succinct and clear way to tell people that they will be used and abused just for the privilege of sharing the personal lives.
And the kicker is this. I kinda get why it is cool to share what happens in your life with others. I actually kinda get the underlying philosophy of the original intent of Facebook. However that intent is long gone and now it is all about the dollars. And while at a very low level they are providing a service that service is so tied in with marketing that it only tends to harm people rather than help them.
Solutions? I've got precious few. Protecting someones privacy seems rather silly when everyone has a webcam, cell phone, or real camera. Never mind the actual government surveillance that goes on. I'm actually betting Brin was right and we will end up in a very open type of world and all the pains that go with that at some point. But as Asimov said hopefully I'll be dead by then.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
This just solidifies my already very negative view of Facebook as a whole. Let other people throw their information and photos away, I will never sign up for an account again.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Also, the "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."
Interestingly, since the non-exclusive license is not supported by a written, signed instrument, it will (under US copyright law) also be superceded by a subsequent transfer of the copyright itself (17 U.S.C. Sec. 205: "Priority Between Conflicting Transfer of Ownership and Nonexclusive License.— A nonexclusive license, whether recorded or not, prevails over a conflicting transfer of copyright ownership if the license is evidenced by a written instrument signed by the owner of the rights licensed or such owner’s duly authorized agent, and if—
(1) the license was taken before execution of the transfer; or
(2) the license was taken in good faith before recordation of the transfer and without notice of it.")
So, what you need to do to get the legal rights out from under Facebook is establish a legal entity separate from the original copyright holder of any photographs on Facebook -- let's call this the "Personal Rights in Images Management Agency, Inc. (PRIMA)", and then set up a process by which individuals can transfer ownership of copyright to pictures and other material already posted to Facebook to PRIMA, with conditions on the transfer covering how PRIMA will grant licenses (including a provision that they will grant licenses back to the original copyright holder at no charge), payments to the original copyright holder based on any license revenue, etc. Then, when you want your stuff off Facebook, you the copyright to PRIMA, and PRIMA sends a demand letter to Facebook to remove PRIMA's copyright-protected material immediately.
(There's no reason this has to be restricted to images, either: it works for anything covered by copyright law that you own the copyright to that Facebook continues to use under the "non-exclusive license" clause of the T&C.)
If I'm going to have ads, I'd rather have them custom made for me. This is an upgrade.
My profile picture is a lolcat. I think my friends will just issue a collective "wtf?" and move on from any ads featuring it.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
I'm so fugly there is no way they would ever choose my pic for an ad... plus, I don't even have a Facebook account!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Why bother repeating this meme? I understand the "you signed up for this, stop complaining about it" angle, but how many people are really going to quit using facebook because they saw it for the 947th time on Slashdot?
The "six or seven-figure ad budget" is a ridiculous statement considering that a single ad exec may make that much at major corporations. The video game I'm working on has an EIGHT FIGURE ad budget (i.e. over $10M). Starbucks does spend remarkably little on advertising but is still in the 8-figure range and there are chains like McDonalds that spend NINE FIGURES (i.e. $700M+) annually.
If you read the article, this isn't any different then what you see in your news feed, when one of your friends checks in, it is just that Starbuck's is paying for it to appear in the "Sponsored" section as well... They aren't doing anything you haven't already done, other then putting it in a more visible place. And this just isn't Starbucks, it is whomever decides that they want to sponsor something you are already posting on Facebook.
People do really need to get a life...
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
Wait, you're confessing to violating the DMCA by removing the copyright notice and then distributing it yourself!?
See how much fun this madhouse has become?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
This particular corner of the madhouse predates the DMCA and the Internet by a good many decades. Photo studios have been scamming consumers this way for a long time.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
There's something wrong with a corporation that charges $10 for a cup of coffee, too. This is nothing new.
There's something wrong with the use of hyperbole when stating a position.
You should read into what's done here instead of crying and hating.
You choose to post a Like/Check-in to your wall. That's your choice. Only your friends see it.
Now this like + message appears again on the side where the stupid ads are. Only your friends see it.
Figures you see an ad for something your friends like, it might actually be something good!
As long as only your friends see it, what's the big deal? They could have just as well move these likes the the top of the Top News Feed and no one would ever know.
^_^
Well, given the context in which that phrase was used - it's more an indictment of Slashdot users than Facebook users.
Just to be clear - I can't speak for the rest of you, but I have no idea what goat urine tastes like. However I would still be a bit put off if it were in the ingredient list of a latte.
#DeleteChrome
Why is everyone complaining about not giving "express permission"? When a FB user signs up and accepts the site's terms of service, they do expressly give permission for Facebook to use their phots and likeness as they deem fit. Of course, you can opt out by modifying your privacy settings (I did, to block both their use of my photos and the location check-in feature). Save your rants for cases where companies step on your rights without permission. If you gave them your permission, I have little patience for the whining or pity for the end result.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
I know about Appleseed and I am on Diaspora, but I wonder if there is truly an alternative beyond hunkering down and cobbling together a website on my own server. Appleseed and Diaspora barely have left the starting line and are galaxies behind facebook and I'm not sure all the money from Google, Microsoft and China combined could get either of those two sites to within shooting distance.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
I don't have a Facebook account, but that part of the ToS that you see on those sites is to allow them to provide the service by publishing the materials you provide. Not as permission to sell the rights to third parties. That's a fundamentally different way than how that's normally interpreted and I don't think that it would stand up in court.
Thank you for proving my point. I don't personally have a FB account because I don't trust them. But, if they're requiring you to opt out in that fashion having slipped something like that into the ToS for the site, I think that's definitely worthy of regulation.
/. coverage. It's really not the picture of informed consent when they need to go with subterfuge in order to trick people into allowing this sort of bullshit.
Additionally, FB changes its privacy policy regularly enough that it's very difficult for people to keep up, just look at the
unless goat is diabetic.
Don't forget there's also the fact that Facebook has trademarked the word 'face', and more disturbingly, Facebook now has facial recognition software which enables them to recognize it trivially. While that might be useful in helping people get tagged in photos, it also has dangerous implications for privacy and advertising.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
Of course you can opt out. Just don't use Facebook. These people act like it's a requirement of modern society to be always-on, like electricity or indoor plumbing. Either don't use it, or shut your traps.
Or of course you could get off your high-horse and understand that you can't do that because you'll end up giving up every service you use. Most practical people have to assume what they expect to be the reasonable deal is, and go ahead based on that. ie get free service, covered by adverts. When everything you do online is covered by a 10-page impenetrable EULA, you have to make assumptions.
This is clearly a breach of what's reasonable and expected, and just because it doesn't affect *you* doesn't mean it's not a problem.
Why all the crying? Just change your profile pick to a goatse photo. I can see the ad now "this is what happens to your dung-hole if you drink starbucks"
Got Code?
DMCA stands DIGITAL millennium copyright act. So if the cropping was done using digital tools (like scissors and fingers, knives held by fingers) then it would be a violation. But if you scan it in and crop it using Photoshop the law would not apply. Hope my understanding of the word digital would be confirmed by the courts.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Perhaps none of them, but someone has to point out its their own damn fault, and everyone has been warning them that this was gonna happen.
Mandatory xkcd:
http://xkcd.com/743/
Trust me, I'm playing the worlds tiniest violin for you, and your friends.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
They don't need that. Such permission is implicit.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Upload a profile picture that says: "Those who follow the ads are nothing but facebook douchebags."
What prevents me from posting a picture of Angelina Jolie as my FB profile picture? Do you think she would be happy having her face used in a Starbucks ad?
Imagine if your attack dogs and trigger-happy roommate were espresso fiends?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
He may have infringed the copyright but what he did has nothing whatsoever to do with the DMCA.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Free advertising for my inflatable love fox!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
2. 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:
1. 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.
-Facebook T&C
Note how whilst this gives them an IP License it does not give them a modeling release which is required for them to use it to endorse products, also to imply I endorse something which I don't is fraud and libel.
IANAL.
null
Forgot to mention that if your Facebook profile pic contains over people in the background (mine does), then that other person who may or may not have agreed to the T&C has even more rights to sue them then you do.
null
The Facebook T&C do not include a modeling release (separate from IP rights) that is required to use a likeness of someone to endorse a product or service. This is especially true if you have other people in the background of your profile pic which may not have agreed to the Facebook T&C.
null
How does owning a website fill the need that Facebook fills?
If I wanted to "follow" Jay Cutler or read what other NFL players are saying about him, an irc channel would be of no use. NFL players (insert other real people of interest to other people) don't use irc.
And couldn't "lazy" be a reason rather than "dumb"?
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
I digested it so fine there's a smell in the room, and I neither like the taste nor texture of English!
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
One of the main reasons I quit facecrack over a year ago was when I saw my face on a classmates banner ad at the bottom of a page.
they used it without your expressed permission.
I expressed my cat without her permission. (I think you meant "express".)
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
> What prevents me from posting a picture of Angelina Jolie as my FB profile picture?
Nothing. She might be able to sue you (celebrities have enhanced rights in their images) but I doubt she would bother even if she (or rather her agent) found out. I suppose she might send takedown notices if her image started appearing in thousands of profiles.
> Do you think she would be happy having her face used in a Starbucks ad?
Certainly. She'd be able to collect quite a bit of money from Starbucks.
BTW you do realize that these "ads" are to be shown only to your Facebook "friends", don't you? They are not talking about billboards or television.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I think my face is pretty damn sexy. Everyone should be able to look at it.
So what? Clothes manufacturers have been using people as walking billboards for years and no one complains. So suddenly because it's Starbucks it matters?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha, this just makes me laugh, this probably marks the beginning of the end for Facebook.. It'll be a slow death though.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
"Checking in" to a store or restaurant is already an ad that is distributed to all your friends.
"Well, er, um... why do you ask sweetie?"
"Because there's a picture of me in a Trojan advertisement saying I like them."
"AAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"
'Nuff said.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.