Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Your Personal Facebook Live Videos Can Legally End Up on TV (thememo.com)

Posted by msmash on from the who-owns-your-content dept.

Kitty Knowles, reporting for the Memo: Think you control what happens to your personal videos? Think again. One father who live-streamed his partner's labour on Facebook last May, has found out the hard way: he saw the birth of his son replayed on Good Morning America and numerous other media outlets. This week, he lost a high-profile court battle against the broadcasters. If you don't want this to happen to you, don't make the same mistakes. It's one thing wanting to share a life-changing moment with friends and family. But most would understand why Kali Kanongataa didn't want his child's birth aired for all to see. That hasn't however, stopped a US judge throwing out Kanongataa's copyright infringement case against the likes of the ABC, Yahoo, and Rodale, the company that publishes Women's Health. Apparently, the father-to-be realised his film was streaming publicly on social media about 30 minutes into recording, but decided to leave it that way. Media outlets broadcasting the clips have defended doing so on the terms of "fair use." Legally, "fair use" means that when pictures or videos are the focus of a major news story, selected footage can be used.Heads up, Facebook will soon release a video app for set-top boxes by Apple and Amazon to broadcast Live videos on the big screen.

93 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. I'll never understand by asylumx · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'll never understand why so many people think they have privacy when they broadcast/post things to the internet.

    ©2017 asylumx (881307), all rights reserved.

    1. Re:I'll never understand by dougdonovan · · Score: 2

      because they don't stop and think, they just point and click and say, oh, it'll be alright.

    2. Re:I'll never understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because it's natural to expect privacy. It's ingrained in human culture. That's what seperates us from the lesser animals -- the ability to reason and respect each other as equals. Privacy is a big part of that. People who shit on privacy don't see others as equal.

      The real problem for the facebook posters is that on the internet, human culture doesn't apply, and they have yet to come to terms with that.

    3. Re:I'll never understand by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course, it'll be fine. If I change my mind, I'll just take it back down. You know, delete it from the Internet. How hard can that be?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    4. Re:I'll never understand by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Troll
      Hell, THIS is the part that's confusing me...

      One father who live-streamed his partner's labour on Facebook last May,

      Ok, usually they use "partner" when referencing gay guys these days...so, are we really worrying so much about a private video going public, when we have here, apparently...new of the first man on earth GIVING BIRTH?!?!

      I've never heard of a normal heterosexual couple being referred to as "partners" before...girlfriend, wife, sister (in KY)....but never partner, I thought that was the pure domain of the homosexual set...?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:I'll never understand by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hollywood's IP is zealously protected, while ours is not. This is why we torrent, folks.

    6. Re:I'll never understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Privacy no, copyright yes.

      I can't rebroadcast the NFL just because it's already been on TV once. Somehow, the court decided fair use doesn't apply to the NFL but does to this guy's facebook stream.

    7. Re:I'll never understand by Darth+Twon · · Score: 2

      Hell, THIS is the part that's confusing me...

      One father who live-streamed his partner's labour on Facebook last May,

      Ok, usually they use "partner" when referencing gay guys these days...so, are we really worrying so much about a private video going public, when we have here, apparently...new of the first man on earth GIVING BIRTH?!?!

      I've never heard of a normal heterosexual couple being referred to as "partners" before...girlfriend, wife, sister (in KY)....but never partner, I thought that was the pure domain of the homosexual set...?

      In the realm of political correctness, 'partner' is the preferred term to cover all possible words that could be use to describe the person or persons that one would consider them self to be 'with'.

      Something something, its not discriminatory.

      Source: Enlightened friends in the collegiate world that insist on re-educating me regularly.

      --
      Take this sig and smoke it.
    8. Re:I'll never understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ok, usually they use "partner" when referencing gay guys these days...

      You're about a decade behind the times, "partner" is now typically used when the people in question aren't legally married but are otherwise in a long-term committed relationship. Spouses are partners but not all partners are married.

    9. Re:I'll never understand by Holi · · Score: 1

      Except this wasn't a privacy claim, this was a copyright claim.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    10. Re:I'll never understand by helsinki92 · · Score: 1

      You are right, but we are trying our best to win our right to "fair use" in the courts, it has to cut both ways. I think this is actually a win for copyright but a complete loss for privacy. He was a dumbshit for live streaming it anyway.

    11. Re:I'll never understand by flink · · Score: 2

      "Partner" is a generic way to refer to someone's primary romantic relation in a gender and relationship neutral manner. In this case, maybe the woman was his wife, maybe she wasn't. When talking to a group of people, saying "feel free to bring you partner to the party," is way less awkward than saying "girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse, or domestic partner".

    12. Re:I'll never understand by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      "Partner" is a generic way to refer to someone's primary romantic relation in a gender and relationship neutral manner. In this case, maybe the woman was his wife, maybe she wasn't. When talking to a group of people, saying "feel free to bring you partner to the party," is way less awkward than saying "girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse, or domestic partner".

      Wow...interesting.

      I have never in my life heard the term "partner" for a normal straight couple....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:I'll never understand by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      This is not an issue of privacy, but an issue of copyright.

    14. Re:I'll never understand by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I'll never understand why the people say "X uploaded it to the internet, it must be fine" when the person being filmed in a vulnerable state was Y. It was the mother's privacy being invaded, and she didn't have shit to do with the video.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    15. Re:I'll never understand by jshackney · · Score: 1

      If you wouldn't put it on a billboard your grandmother drives by every day, don't put it on the internet.

      The preacher says to the choir.

    16. Re:I'll never understand by jshackney · · Score: 1

      So the common law marriage is just for the fuddy duddies, eh?

    17. Re:I'll never understand by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Informative

      This case was hardly a "win for copyright." Under present law, any creator of content is supposed to get an innate copyright over his work, regardless of whether there is any formal filing. But in this case Hollywood has asserted its right to replay our content without credit or compensation over their media channels, while at the same time crushing as much fair use by hoi polloi as it can get away with. Yes, they are having it both ways.

    18. Re:I'll never understand by mpeskett · · Score: 1

      More that it's just not always an accurate description - I feel like it's possible to be cohabiting, exclusive partners in a reasonably long-term committed way, without necessarily wanting to import all the connotations of mutually agreed permanence that comes from calling yourself married, common-law or otherwise.

      Although that being said, it does also sound slightly archaic... the first thought that comes to mind for me as a mental image for someone in a common-law marriage would be Pop and Ma Larkin from The Darling Buds of May, which is a slightly dated TV show based on an even older book, and set in the rural English countryside (which just adds another layer of quaint olde-worldy-ness).

    19. Re:I'll never understand by fred911 · · Score: 1

      "So the common law marriage is just for the fuddy duddies, eh?"

            Here let me fix that typo for ya...

      So the common law marriage is just for the fuck buddies, eh?

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    20. Re:I'll never understand by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Doesn't the same thing happen to YouTube videos already?

      I've never posted anything there I don't want the world to see, so if they use one of my videos I'd be flattered instead.

      However what does bother me is that I often see videos linked on other web sites, and then it's (C) YouTube. Or photos from Facebook, and it says (C) Facebook. Now I understand the part where YouTube and Facebook will have the right to re-use your videos/photos in any way they see fit, but how come they even can claim copyright on it? Or is that simply the news media not understanding copyright (which would be about as worrying but then for other reasons)?

    21. Re:I'll never understand by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Presumably he read the bit of the Facebook T&Cs that says that you grant them a non-exclusive, sublicensable, transferable, commercial license to anything that you upload, and that you agree to indemnify them against any claims of copyright infringement. They are entirely at liberty to take anything that you upload and sell it and are not required to give you a cut (remember the Starbucks posters with pictures of people who had uploaded Facebook pictures from their shops?). The only surprising part is that Facebook didn't manage to get paid for this.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:I'll never understand by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's not natural to agree to a set of terms and conditions that explicitly grants a third party unlimited commercial rights to anything that you upload, upload some things, and then complain that you no longer have control over those things.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:I'll never understand by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      "Partner" is a generic way to refer to someone's primary romantic relation in a gender and relationship neutral manner. In this case, maybe the woman was his wife, maybe she wasn't. When talking to a group of people, saying "feel free to bring you partner to the party," is way less awkward than saying "girlfriend, boyfriend, spouse, or domestic partner".

      Wow...interesting.

      I have never in my life heard the term "partner" for a normal straight couple....

      It's very useful when you have no idea if they're married or what, and don't want to be too obvious about the fact that this is the sort of thing you'd like to mention--or when you're doing the form letter invite.

    24. Re:I'll never understand by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I thought "significant other" was the proper term to use in this case. Either that, or +1.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Get what they deserve by r_naked · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even non-technical Facebook users know that it is a privacy nightmare .. so why keep one?

    You want to stay in touch with friends and family -- EMAIL. At least there are some modest privacy protections in place for email accounts.

    -- RN

    --
    -- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
    1. Re:Get what they deserve by ckatko · · Score: 1

      They're also illegal to snoop / copy.

    2. Re:Get what they deserve by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even non-technical Facebook users know that it is a privacy nightmare .. so why keep one?

      You want to stay in touch with friends and family -- EMAIL. At least there are some modest privacy protections in place for email accounts.

      -- RN

      Good god, fuck no. Sorry but comparing email to a social network is like comparing a telegram to a video conference. The use cases are different. The presentation is different. The way it works is very different. What you can do with it is different.

      You know what email is good for? Sending some long text to one person.

      God you bring back nightmares of people trying to share something as simple as a few family vacation snaps via email. 30 people all getting nothing but messages that a sender has tried overloading your inbox, only to have it get resent in a format so badly compressed that no one can make out anything. Not to mention the persistency of things posted to facebook and the ability to modify collections of posts give it features that just aren't possible with email which are none the less great for when you're communicating with family and friends.

      I'm not going to say you're comparing apples to oranges here. You're comparing apples to a medium rare pepper steak with mushroom sauce, and a side of wonderfully spiced wedges, yes you could eat the both but you wouldn't use one in place of the other.

    3. Re:Get what they deserve by r_naked · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even non-technical Facebook users know that it is a privacy nightmare .. so why keep one?

      You want to stay in touch with friends and family -- EMAIL. At least there are some modest privacy protections in place for email accounts.

      -- RN

      Good god, fuck no. Sorry but comparing email to a social network is like comparing a telegram to a video conference. The use cases are different. The presentation is different. The way it works is very different. What you can do with it is different.

      You know what email is good for? Sending some long text to one person.

      God you bring back nightmares of people trying to share something as simple as a few family vacation snaps via email. 30 people all getting nothing but messages that a sender has tried overloading your inbox, only to have it get resent in a format so badly compressed that no one can make out anything. Not to mention the persistency of things posted to facebook and the ability to modify collections of posts give it features that just aren't possible with email which are none the less great for when you're communicating with family and friends.

      I'm not going to say you're comparing apples to oranges here. You're comparing apples to a medium rare pepper steak with mushroom sauce, and a side of wonderfully spiced wedges, yes you could eat the both but you wouldn't use one in place of the other.

      I don't believe that I said that they were remotely equal. As for your "You know what email is good for? Sending some long text to one person." -- I guess you haven't heard of distribution lists? As for sending attachments -- uh, no. If I take a video of my niece, and upload it to Dropbox, I can get a link that I can paste into an email and send.... viola -- the family all has a copy, and Facebook (or anyone else for that matter) can't do shit with it.

      Now, you are correct about the fact that isn't as efficient as Facebook, but again, I guess you don't care about your privacy -- I do.

      -- RN

      --
      -- http://anonet.org -- The internet the way it was meant to be. Check it out, you may be surprised.
    4. Re:Get what they deserve by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that I said that they were remotely equal.

      No what you said was "You want to stay in touch with friends and family -- EMAIL." Implying that people use Facebook to talk to friends and family and they can just use email instead.

      I guess you haven't heard of distribution lists?

      I have. Those wonderful all or nothing systems are quite useless for talking to a group of friends. They are unthreadded and a multi-person conversation is incredibly difficult to follow, even when the result is displayed in a supposedly easy format but let alone for email. Good luck getting all but a very specific subset of people to understand it.

      and upload it to Dropbox

      Oh okay. So when you said email you actually meant sign up for a 3rd party storage service, upload photos to it manually, copy links, paste them into emails, then write something that makes it hard to see the context side by side with the picture. What you're describing is what is commonly known as "a hassle".

      I guess you don't care about your privacy

      Oh I care very deeply about my privacy. That is precisely why what ends up on Facebook is a curated feed. But then if I wanted to keep something private I wouldn't be using a system to send it to a large audience which again makes comparing email to Facebook completely pointless.

      Apples and steaks. The fruit bowl is open on my desk for you to grab an apple whenever you want. Keep your fingers off the steaks in the fridge. And before you reference the story itself on this issue, remember that it was the user who posted the video with the public setting, not Facebook who violated his privacy.

      But hey, come check out my vacation photos from Norway on my Facebook feed. My nick is the same as it is here. I challenge you to test how public those pictures really are.

    5. Re:Get what they deserve by antdude · · Score: 1

      I know people who really hates emails and prefer other methods like Facebook, textings (can't even BCC!), etc.

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  3. Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by ripvlan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Oh no - The horror, the horror. Oh wait ...this turns out to be a non-story.

    One cannot rebroadcast the "whole" movie without permission - but one can show limited clips. Just like Movie Reviewers do. They are allowed to show clips that represent the review points that they are making. All under fair-use.

    Now we'll start seeing more Youtube videos that say "I don't own the video but posted the complete copy here and it is owned by the owner - this statement makes is fair use" Yeah - no.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    1. Re:Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Bullshit - Facebook's terms of use allow them to redistribute ANYTHING you post to any and all 3rd parties, and even to charge for it.

      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.

      Someone shared your sh*t? Too bad - you have ZERO control over it at that point, even if you delete it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by Kjella · · Score: 1

      While what you said is true, it's also irrelevant. Nothing suggests they got a license from Facebook, if you do something newsworthy on your totally own, self-hosted blog it can be reported on the news. So if you have a problem with this story, go see Congress. There's nothing Facebook could have done to prevent this use of the content, even if the wanted to.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit - Facebook's terms of use allow them to redistribute ANYTHING you post to any and all 3rd parties, and even to charge for it.

      How is that even relevant? In this case it was ABC that was redistributing the footage.

    4. Re:Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Bullshit - Facebook's terms of use allow them to redistribute ANYTHING you post to any and all 3rd parties, and even to charge for it.

      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.

      I was going to say that's the standard legalese any online service needs to use to give themselves the right to make the service function (you need to grant them the right to reproduce your stuff on the computers of people who are viewing it). But then I noticed a subtle difference in the wording. Here's the equivalent portion of YouTube's terms of service:

      For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

      I've emphasized the important parts. At first glance they seem identical. But if you look carefully, although both ToS use the term "in connection with [the service]", it modifies different things.

      • In the Facebook ToS, it modifies "content that you post". That is, anything you post on Facebook, you're giving them a license to do anything they want with. Basically, anything you post on Facebook, they own and can do whatever they want with, including selling it, up until you delete it or your account.
      • In the YouTube ToS, it modifies "perform the Content". That is, the license you're granting is only for the purposes of playing the video on YouTube. Anything you post on YouTube, you still own, and YouTube only has rights to broadcast it to people viewing it via YouTube (or an embedded link).
    5. Re:Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      I know people don't even read the summary any more, but Facebook is mentioned in the TITLE. So Facebook's terms of use are totally relevant.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    6. Re:Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Good luck taking them to court. You'd lose. This is not a boilerplate shrinkwrap license that you didn't see until after you bought the product, and it's certainly not "massive pages of legalize (sic) that no one in their right mind would wade through". Obviously you never even read it.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      ABC has the legal right, via Facebook's ToS, to redistribute what is posted on Facebook. Same as EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD. You post something on Facebook, I don't need your permission to repost it. Read the ToS and you'll see just how relevant it is.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Finally, someone else who understands the difference. You go to the head of the class :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re: Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      I'm calling you out on that. Go on. Point me to the exact place in the TOS which says what you claim, I.e. allows ABC to redistributes publicly posted video. I say there isn't any such place.

    10. Re: Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      And I'm calling you out for being an illiterate idiot - I already quoted the section, with a link to it. According to their ToS, ANYONE can redistribute anything you post. That includes you, me, ABC, and even Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    11. Re:Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      I don't think it would matter where it was posted. True - FB has a license with you so that they can distribute your content for viewing on FB. But that isn't what ABC et al was using.

      Even if ABC had found the video elsewhere on the web -- reporting a story and using clips to convey the story is allowed under copyright. They were not making the WHOLE video available (I assume). A judge would look at how MUCH of the video was re-used to make a fair determination - but previous cases have determined that short-clips are fine. Or Parody - you can do all the parody you want!!

      But your point about digital copies causing you loss of control are correct. It may not be legal - but you can't control it after it is published.

      Now, if only (!) there was a technology that would allow the content owner to control how their digital content was used. Dare I say it... DRM ?! :-D

  4. Well, duh! by mmell · · Score: 3, Informative
    Read the TOS - the instant you upload or post data to Facebook (and they sure aren't alone in this), the data becomes their property. They let you use their service for free (that is, they aren't billing your credit card or waiting for your check each month), and in return you give up ownership of everything you voluntarily give to them.

    You want to have some fun? Get shocked silly? Compare Gmail's TOS to Live's TOS. In my opinion, Microsoft is considerably less evil than Google (although Bing is still worthless when compared to Google search). Frankly, when I made that particular discovery I'm surprised I didn't stroke out on the spot with a heart attack. Totally not what I expected there.

    Back to the main point - I'd love to believe that Slashdot readers are highly likely to have read the TOS before signing on here, at Facebook, on Twitter, via LinkedIn, . . . sadly, I doubt it. C'mon, people - at least the SysAdmins and Engineers out there should have. After all, on the job it's part of what we get paid for, yes/no?

    1. Re:Well, duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has pretty much always been less evil.

    2. Re:Well, duh! by ctilsie242 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This. Once a video hits the Internet, be it YouTube, Facebook, or some other source, effectively it can wind up on TV or become someone's propaganda tape. With Facebook, the users are the product; not the customers, so it is no wonder why the EULA is clear in allowing FB to do what they so please to whatever is stashed or uploaded.

      If you want to compare TOS listings... the difference between my paid E-mail provider and my Gmail account is quite noticable. My paid provider says quite bluntly that they do not use any filter or search engine for ads on incoming E-mail, and that E-mail belongs to the end user, not them, and is only accessed by the mail provider in a limited number of circumstances.

      You do get what you pay for. I keep Gmail around, but if I'm doing professional work, it goes to the Exchange hosted account.

    3. Re:Well, duh! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      Our job is to get shit done. Reading lengthy, multi-page ToS that only lawyers can understand is not productive.

      Even if we were to understand all details, trying to explain why you need to find another solution to our bosses would be met by "install it anyway".

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:Well, duh! by omnichad · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the data becomes their property

      The data is still your property. They just have an irrevocable right to use and sublicense it. Not much practical difference other than you can still sell your own licenses to it and you can still use it personally.

    5. Re:Well, duh! by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      The solution is to self-host content. If he had hosted the actual content (video) at home or with a third party like EC2 and only given Facebook a hyperlink, it wouldnt be an issue. The problem is letting Facebook host your data, its a bad deal. Host your content in places that respect your ownership.

      --
      Good-bye
    6. Re:Well, duh! by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

      Now tell me how to stop a friend or acquaintance from uploading something about me (video, image, or text) and having Facebook have the rights to that.

      While I don't have a Facebook account, chances are pretty good they've built a shadow profile of me based on people I know, possibly photos I've been tagged in... and any other databases they've purchased.

      Short of being a complete hermit who only occasionally goes outside (in hoodie and sunglasses) and pays only in cash... there's no way to get any corporate interest to respect your privacy. We ought to have stronger legislation on that front.

    7. Re:Well, duh! by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      It is what the lawyers (FTFY) get paid for. And the lawyers know that if they make a TOS that is 50 pages long, literally 2 people in a million will read the TOS and instead everyone will assume that their rights will be protected by the laws of the land.

      The simple solution for this kind of bullshit is to legislatively eliminate the customer as the product business model. If you want to run your site as advertising, that is fine, but no company should be able to own your data or your posts. As a side note, I wonder that there have not been any prosections of FB et all for IP infringement (say an employee uploads copyrighted or other restricted materials to FB). Since FB claims ownership of all uploaded content, doesn't that make them criminally liable for posession of stolen goods/IP violation? I know the courts are too clueless to actually follow that logic, but technically it does seem like they don't get the common carrier exemption for what their servers contain considering they claim ownership of it.

      The sad thing is that FB made $27.6B in 2015 in sales and $10B in profits. In other words, they could get rid of all the draconian bullshit and just charge $3/month of each user (all 1.2B of them) and everyone could own their own posts and content and FB would increase profits by 100%. Most users would be happy to pay $3/month for an add free experience where you know your live streamed birth to family members won't end up on the national news...

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    8. Re:Well, duh! by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      you still own it, as a condition of using facebook's systems, you agree to give them a license to use what you post.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    9. Re:Well, duh! by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Read the TOS - the instant you upload or post data to Facebook (and they sure aren't alone in this), the data becomes their property.

      Better idea, read TFA because while Facebook may give themselves rights to your video this has absolutely zero to do with the issue at hand.

    10. Re:Well, duh! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Now tell me how to stop a friend or acquaintance from uploading something about me (video, image, or text) and having Facebook have the rights to that.

      That's the problem. On the internet you're as private as the most un-private[1] person who knows you.

      [1] Is there a word for that (in that sense)?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Well, duh! by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Read the TOS - the instant you upload or post data to Facebook (and they sure aren't alone in this), the data becomes their property. They let you use their service for free (that is, they aren't billing your credit card or waiting for your check each month), and in return you give up ownership of everything you voluntarily give to them.

      Read the article. This case was decided on the basis of fair use. The question of who is the copyright-owner has no relevance to fair use.

    12. Re:Well, duh! by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      the most un-private[1] person who knows you.

      [1] Is there a word for that (in that sense)?

      Stupid?

      Inconsiderate?

      Naive?

      Clueless?

      Your relatives?

      HTH
      HAND :)

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    13. Re:Well, duh! by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

      But... what was newsworthy about it?

      where is the 'Public Interest'? (which legally speaking, requires more than just people wanting to see it.)

    14. Re:Well, duh! by mmell · · Score: 1
      If you're getting paid to get "Shit" done, that's sure one way to go about it.

      I get paid to do productive work - not "shit". If I ever recommend using any software in the enterprise and the TOS comes back to bite 'em in the ass, just who do you suppose will end up getting pilloried for it?

    15. Re:Well, duh! by mmell · · Score: 1

      Okay, I was semantically incorrect, but functionally on-target. IANAL. Are you?

    16. Re:Well, duh! by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Okay, I was semantically incorrect, but functionally on-target. IANAL. Are you?

      You weren't functionally on-target. TOS had nothing to do with this case.

      They're an interesting topic in and of themselves, and your beliefs about them are reasonable. But even if there was a company with the most privacy-friendly TOS in the world, that still wouldn't have helped in this case. His was a newsworthy story, and ABC showed a short clip, so it was fair use, and the TOS between him and facebook have nothing to do with the relationship between him and ABC.

    17. Re:Well, duh! by flink · · Score: 1

      Now tell me how to stop a friend or acquaintance from uploading something about me (video, image, or text) and having Facebook have the rights to that.

      Depending on where you live and whether anyone is making a profit off of it, you might be able to claim a violation of your likeness rights. I doubt your friend got a model release from you before posting to Facebook. I don't know if something like that has ever been tried though.

    18. Re:Well, duh! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If I ever recommend using any software in the enterprise and the TOS comes back to bite 'em in the ass, just who do you suppose will end up getting pilloried for it?

      Exactly the same person who'd get pilloried if you told them not to touch it with somebody else's bargepole.

      HInt: it isn't your boss, you horrid little peon.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    19. Re:Well, duh! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If I keep the original footage, and they don't have a work for hire agreement, I will easily be able to resist those. They don't want to waste money even if they could bankrupt me.

    20. Re:Well, duh! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Facebook T&Cs, as well as granting Facebook an almost unlimited license to anything you upload also includes a clause that you agree to indemnify them against this kind of claim. So, while you might be able to take Facebook to court and win if they took a video your friend uploaded of you and sold it, they would then be able to turn around immediately and sue your friend for whatever amount the court awarded you.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. its never been your content. by nimbius · · Score: 1

    arguing for your live video rights on facebook is like listening to the cattle argue for ownership over their milk. Its not going to happen.

    in the future, consider recording the event, uploading it to something like owncloud or your own personal storage, and editing it accordingly. Once its ready, take the time to upload it (if you so desire) to youtube and select an appropriate license (hint: not youtube.) to share with friends. if and when approached for the footage you may then negotiate the terms of your content.

    Facebook has already proven numerous times: blindly clicking the app can have rather dire consequences, and your content does not belong exclusively to you.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  6. Only apps can app apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Appbook apped this stupid LUDDITE by apping his video because he agreed to the Apps & Appditions when he signed app for Appbook! He should stop being a LUDDITE and only app apps while apping other apps!

    Apps!

  7. To use Facebook to its fullest by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Only post advertisements for your business. Don't put personal shit on the internet.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. Bingo: Facebook is a marketing channel by rsborg · · Score: 1

    Only post advertisements for your business. Don't put personal shit on the internet.

    I know a self-employed gal (belly dancer / teacher) who uses facebook very well as a way to get gigs and keep her classes full. It's about her, of course, but she uses it more like a big-shot CEO uses twitter - promotion and influencing - than as a view on her personal life - she doesn't even list her kid or hubby on relations, nor does she share pictures of them.

    That's the right way to use it - it's all potentially public to everyone, but she gets a revenue boost by using it so it's a win/win for her.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
  9. the court is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Suppose you give birth to a baby by the side of the road. A news crew is in the area and films it. Do they have the right to broadcast it? Because this happened in a public place, the courts have ruled you have no right to privacy. Because it is a newsworthy event, the news people have the right to film it. But, pretty much any court would agree with you if you sued the news people for invasion of privacy if they broadcast it. The case at hand is really no different. The problem is that the courts no longer believe in the rights of individuals, only in the rights of corporations.

    1. Re:the court is wrong by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Because it is a newsworthy event

      How many humans have been born? I wouldn't call any birth newsworthy.

    2. Re:the court is wrong by Imrik · · Score: 1

      Except he didn't sue for invasion of privacy, he sued for copyright infringement.

  10. Simple solution by future+assassin · · Score: 2

    When the video is running pull out a Gotse picture for a few seconds and just like in Mortal Kombat yell Goatse!!!!

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  11. 100% his fault by EndlessNameless · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are public and private streaming options. He was recording to a public stream.

    The article even says he noticed it was public after 30 minutes and left it that way.

    I have every desire for legal privacy protections, but this guy basically waived them all. And then had the audacity to file a lawsuit.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    1. Re:100% his fault by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      There are public and private streaming options. He was recording to a public stream.

      The article even says he noticed it was public after 30 minutes and left it that way.

      I have every desire for legal privacy protections, but this guy basically waived them all.

      Are you conflating legal privacy protection with legal copyright protection?

      The guy in question didn't make any arguments about legal privacy protections. He instead made arguments about legal *copyright* protections. He remained the copyright owner, notwithstanding uploading it or broadcasting it. He argued that, as copyright holder, he can deny ABC and other networks from redistributing his video. This in general is a valid legal copyright claim. But ABC argued that it was a news story of public significance, and so when they broadcast a clip of it, that fell under fair use. This is a valid legal exception to copyright, which is why they won.

      He didn't file a privacy lawsuit. He filed a copyright lawsuit. I don't think it was audacious of him to do that. He would have won, too, had it not been a newsworthy event.

      Just think this through. The mere fact that you broadcast something publicly doesn't mean you lose copyright ownership of it. And it doesn't automatically give other companies like ABC the right to rebroadcast it themselves. (If it did, then everyone in the world would be legally entitled to rebroadcast any free-to-air television stations! which might be reasonable in some kind of free-property hippy utopia, but isn't allowed in our society).

    2. Re:100% his fault by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The guy in question didn't make any arguments about legal privacy protections. He instead made arguments about legal *copyright* protections. He remained the copyright owner, notwithstanding uploading it or broadcasting it. He argued that, as copyright holder, he can deny ABC and other networks from redistributing his video. This in general is a valid legal copyright claim. But ABC argued that it was a news story of public significance, and so when they broadcast a clip of it, that fell under fair use. This is a valid legal exception to copyright, which is why they won.

      ABC argued it was a newsworthy story AND that it was fair use - they only showed a 45 second clip of the full video (which was a few hours long, I believe).

      There's no test for whether a clip is "sufficiently short", but 45 seconds out of a few hours is generally considered an acceptable length snippet under fair use.

      Had ABC broadcast the whole thing, yes, they'd be in violation of copyright (there's no fair use protection for that). But they created a snippet around a newsworthy event - the story itself is copyright ABC, and the video to complement it is considered fair use.

  12. Fair Use, not TOS theft. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously this has been the case for a very long time already. And it has nothing to do with website Terms of Service. As the judge explained, this is an actual case of FAIR USE. Period. Not a thing to do with anyone's TOS, nothing at all. This is proper use of Fair Use laws to take clips and segments for commentary and news reporting.

    "Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship."

    Please don't confuse "big corporations" establishing still more Fair Use case law as merely other big corporations stealing content via a TOS paragraph. They are not at all the same thing and actually help us little guys out in the long run as one of the few remaining ways to end-run the insanity we call Copyright Law.

  13. Privacy and Wiretapping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If the judge decided there was no expectation of privacy, then what measures can Facebook implement to provide legal privacy if not practical privacy? If the data is legally private, where would wiretapping laws come into play?

  14. Seriously? by snookiex · · Score: 2

    Everyone here is bitching about privacy, but I wonder why on earth would you publicly broadcast your partner's labour over the internet. I mean, seriously, people has to stop mediatizing their moments. Just enjoy your life.

    --
    Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
  15. Re:Ah, but go for fun ones by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    acquaintance... just this person I kind of know, just came home with me one day and never leaves.

  16. Hypocrisy by Martin+S. · · Score: 2

    People get sued for tens of thousands for each download of a torrent on, when a corp broadcasts others material to millions they get of scot free.

  17. Nicely done by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Hoohaas on Facebook, who would have thought.

  18. If you want privacy use private services and serve by jgfenix · · Score: 1

    Any other thing is naive, specially if it's free.

  19. No, you don't get it by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    it's natural to expect privacy.

    It's natural to some of us. It's apparently not natural to some other people, which is why they broadcast their stuff to the Internet.

    If you're fucking your wife in your bedroom, you expect privacy. If you're fucking her in the town square, while occasionally making eye contract with strangers and saying, "hey, check out what we're doing," then that suggests that you don't expect privacy.

    I think the better rhetorical question is: why are some people so amazingly stupid, that they are incapable of telling the difference between these two scenarios? What is causing this stupidity? Is there anything we can do about it, and if there is, should we do it?

    The real problem for the facebook posters is that on the internet, human culture doesn't apply, and they have yet to come to terms with that.

    No, the problem is that some users don't know the difference between fucking in the town square (uploading to facebook) vs their bedrooms (sending encrypted email).

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    1. Re:No, you don't get it by jareth-0205 · · Score: 1

      I think the better rhetorical question is: why are some people so amazingly stupid, that they are incapable of telling the difference between these two scenarios? What is causing this stupidity? Is there anything we can do about it, and if there is, should we do it?

      When Facebook purports to give you control over your data, privacy settings, then yes it is absolutely reasonable to expect that stuff to be private to the people you choose. Yes, we know that their impenetrable contracts give them loads of rights, but the site does not communicate that in how it works. Despite your colourful analogy, very little about how Facebook works would make a normal person believe that they are in a fully public place.

      I know it's superfun to call people stupid, and it makes you feel really great about your level of intelligence, but I would put real money on you believing stuff about other fields (law for example) that you're not personally involved in that are simply wrong. People do not have time to understand everything and they have to live their lives using reasonable expectation. The reasonable expectation of Facebook posts is that they are private to your group of friends.

    2. Re:No, you don't get it by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 1

      Facebook is not your neighbor's house. I totally don't understand how anyone can see it as even faintly analogous to that. I'm serious. This is 2+2=5 territory to me.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    3. Re:No, you don't get it by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      My main issue here is that Facebook defaults to public on damn near everything. It's pretty much why my Facebook profile is near-dead, and pretty much entirely exists for some work-related stuff.

  20. What does this mean for free software copyrights? by mark-t · · Score: 1

    If allowing the public to access your content means that you can no longer exert copyright control over it, then that means that every single open source license ever invented has just been shut down cold.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  21. Re:What does this mean for free software copyright by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Oracle vs Google re: the Java API comes to mind as one noteworthy example...

    But what, exactly, makes their use of this work "fair"? They rebroadcasted the work without permission of the copyright holder, and I'm not sure they even acknowledged the copyright holder in their rebroadcast. Unless facebook live's terms of usage states that they own the content that is uploaded to it, I think that the guy's copyright was most definitely infringed.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  22. two way street? by kiviQr · · Score: 1

    So if someone steams a Hollywood movie with closed caption as a creative narration - we are OK to watch it b/c it is a fair use???

  23. one-way laws by Tom · · Score: 1

    No don't think that you as a citzen can do something similar. These laws were made to ensure that the noble class rules over the peasant class for all ... what? Yes? ... ah... ok... sorry to interrupt, there was a mix-up in the time scale. So as I said, these laws were made to ensure that the corporate, legal entity rules over... what? oh? ok, apparently we don't say that anymore, the proper phrase is "can create more jobs".

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  24. AWS is cheap but not free by tepples · · Score: 1

    Video at 720p takes about 2 Mbps (source), or 2 Mbps * 60 s/minute * 1 GB/8000 Mbit = 0.015 GB/minute. Data transfer out of AWS costs 9 cents per GB plus tax (source). If a 10-minute (0.15 GB) video goes viral (which used to be called getting Slashdotted) and gets 10,000 views, that could result in a big AWS bill: 0.15 GB/view * 10,000 views * $0.09/GB = $135. Is the average person expected to afford that without running his own ads?

  25. It's the copyright laws being tested by shubus · · Score: 1

    And now some judge is saying it doesn't apply. Let's extrapolate where this can go. Like to any Internet video content including MSM outlets by anyone. Anyone remember a recent Trump interview by ABC where the network was making all sorts of outrageous copyright claims? Anyway, I see it as another good opportunity to get off FB and have a life.

  26. LOL! Jokes on them.... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    I'm not on Facebook! Screw that!