Comments on: What the Facebook debacle says about sharing

By: Boone

Boone — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 15:31:04 +0000

Hi Palma. I think what the “Share Link” language refers to is the little icons that appears at the bottom of some blog posts (including the ones on your blog) that allow someone to post, with a single link, to Facebook, Twitter, Delicious, Digg, and so on. The motivating idea (from FB’s point of view, at least) seems to be that when the owner puts a FB share link on her blog, she is giving explicit permission to FB to republish her content, and is thus functionally equivalent to putting the content directly on Facebook yourself. I guess the same is true when you pipe your blog posts into the Notes section of Facebook.

My impression is that they have no rights over your content (future content at least) if you turn off these direct connections with Facebook, i.e. remove the Share button from your blog, and don’t send your blog posts into Facebook.

It is sad, though – like you say, Facebook is really cool for a lot of purposes. But in the end it’s not worth handing over irrevocable, unlimited rights to everything you’ve produced!

By: Palma | Buddha Trance

Palma | Buddha Trance — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:39:42 +0000

I wish now I had come across this post just two days ago. A new friend asked me about my blog, and when I posted the link in private messaging, a “share” link was automatically created. I hit send without paying attention…

Does this mean they own my entire blog forever and ever, including future content?

I shall take the notes out, wondering about the implications of the feed and the fan page. I many ways I really like Facebook, as a connection and potential promotional tool, but being completely owned is scary stuff…

By: Boone

Boone — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:50:06 +0000

Yes.

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. (from Facebook's Terms of Use, as of Feb 17 2009)

My charitable side thinks that the terms of reuse are so broad in part because Facebook wants to leave the door open for future formats and media in which Facebook might provide services. Kinda like how a pre-Internet contract would be extended to cover internet use via some "any future technology" clause. But FB is explicit about using your material for "commercial or advertising" purposes, which seems unnecessarily assholish.

By: Andrew Cullison

Andrew Cullison — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:55:25 +0000

To add to this (and I may be wrong) I haven’t read the new TOS very carefully….

Doesn’t the new TOS give Facebook the right to do things OTHER THAN simply keep the information you’ve shared available to other people?

For example, doesn’t the new TOS give facebook the right to put together a hardcopy photo album of all your pictures and start selling it?

By: Facebook Owns You(r Original Content Produced On or Shared Through Their Tubes) at cac.ophony.org

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 18:50:47 +0000

[...] Comments Teleogistic / What the Facebook debacle says about sharing on Facebook Owns You(r Original Content Produced On or Shared Through Their Tubes)Wendy on Reading [...]