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

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.

Comments

I'll never understand

[asylumx]

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.

Re:I'll never understand

[gnick]

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?

Re:I'll never understand

[Applehu Akbar]

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

Re:I'll never understand

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

Get what they deserve

[r_naked]

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

Re:Get what they deserve

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:Get what they deserve

[r_naked]

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

Well, duh!

[mmell]

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?

Re:Well, duh!

[ctilsie242]

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.

Re:Well, duh!

[omnichad]

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.

Re:Yes - that's called Copyright & Fair-use

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

No, you don't get it

[Cajun Hell]

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).