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")."
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.
You could avoid using facebook altogether.
did you forget to take your meds?
Correct article 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
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
My "hello.jpg" Facebook photo would make a great ad.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
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...
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.
It could be worse, such as photoshopping for hemorrhoid cream:
"Suffering from anal itching, anal ache or pain, especially while sitting? Timex recommends Cool Bung brand rectal relief!"
Or you use a copyrighted image for fb that you don't own the copyright to (and thus couldn't have implictly given to Facebook), wait untill the lawsuits start! I think this idea won't get too far.
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
I like this idea. Hilarity would definitely ensue when the Target logo is shown on a Wal-Mart ad, Lowe's in Home Depot, etc. Once company could get free advertising on the competitor's dime!
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
As Facebook's TOS allows them to terminate any use at any time in their sole and final discretion for any or no reason, any loopholes will be conveniently plugged by administrative fiat.
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.
doesn't matter - only takes a single use to break the law..
you can't go in to a bank and hold up a gun saying your going to rob people and 5min in when the cops show up put the gun down and say "you know what that isn't what i meant to do" and walk away
while person A did upload the image and was in violation of copyright. so is Facebook when they distribute for profit.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
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
What I mean is that someone using that loophole to get facebook in hot water may result in being banned (and all evidence getting shredded) before anyone has time to file a complaint.
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
All photos are copyrighted whether you apply for it or not.
Yes, but how it's implemented depends on where you live.
If you're in the US, your copyright has to be registered in order for you to be awarded statutory damages -- for unregistered copyrights, the onus is on the plaintiff to document a monetary loss.
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.)
Finally my goatse profile pic is going to pay off.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Most definitely. There was a Federated Social Web Summit in Portland in July, 2010, and more on the way. There's a federated social web mailing list, and now the beginnings of a W3C working group that many of us will be working together on. I can't say for sure how it will shake out in the end, because we're all taking different approaches to see which one sticks, but I can guarantee you that a common protocol is part of the process.
Appleseed, on that note, is built to be somewhat protocol agnostic, so we can support upcoming protocols, as well as multiple protocols simultaneously.
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.
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