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.

30 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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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".

    7. 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.

  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 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.

    2. 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.
  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 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
  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 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.

    2. 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.)

  5. 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*
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.

  9. 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