Facebook's New Terms Of Service: "We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever."
This post has generated a lot of responses, including from Facebook. Check them out here.
Facebook's terms of service (TOS) used to say that when you closed an account on their network, any rights they claimed to the original content you uploaded would expire. Not anymore.
Now, anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later.* Want to close your account? Good for you, but Facebook still has the right to do whatever it wants with your old content. They can even sublicense it if they want.
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.
That language is the same as in the old TOS, but there was an important couple of lines at the end of that section that have been removed:
You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
Furthermore, the "Termination" section near the end of the TOS states:
The following sections will survive any termination of your use of the Facebook Service: Prohibited Conduct, User Content, Your Privacy Practices, Gift Credits, Ownership; Proprietary Rights, Licenses, Submissions, User Disputes; Complaints, Indemnity, General Disclaimers, Limitation on Liability, Termination and Changes to the Facebook Service, Arbitration, Governing Law; Venue and Jurisdiction and Other.
Make sure you never upload anything you don't feel comfortable giving away forever, because it's Facebook's now.
(Note that as several readers have pointed out, this seems to be subject to your privacy settings, so anything you've protected from full public view doesn't seem to be usable in other ways regardless.)
Oh, you also agree to arbitration, naturally. Have fun with that.
Update: Several Facebook groups have formed to protest the new TOS:
"People Against the new Terms of Service (TOS)"
"FACEBOOK OWNS YOU: Protest the New Changes to the TOS!"
"Those against Facebook's new TOS!"
Update 2: Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg has posted a response on the Facebook blog. A crude summary: "trust us, we're not doing this to profit from you, it's so we are legally protected as we enable you to share content with other users and services." His point, I think, is that there are interesting issues of ownership and rights clearance when you're dealing with content shared in a social network:
Still, the interesting thing about this change in our terms is that it highlights the importance of these issues and their complexity. People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them-like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on-to other services and grant those services access to those people's information. These two positions are at odds with each other. There is no system today that enables me to share my email address with you and then simultaneously lets me control who you share it with and also lets you control what services you share it with.
Update 3: I just found this clarification posted earlier this afternoon on The Industry Standard. It was emailed to them by a Facebook representative and seems to confirm that your privacy settings trump all else:
We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload. The new Terms were clarified to be more consistent with the behavior of the site. That is, if you send a message to another user (or post to their wall, etc...), that content might not be removed by Facebook if you delete your account (but can be deleted by your friend). Furthermore, it is important to note that this license is made subject to the user's privacy settings. So any limitations that a user puts on display of the relevant content (e.g. To specific friends) are respected by Facebook. Also, the license only allows us to use the info "in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof." Users generally expect and understand this behavior as it has been a common practice for web services since the advent of webmail. For example, if you send a message to a friend on a webmail service, that service will not delete that message from your friend's inbox if you delete your account.
New TOS (from 4 Feb 2009) [Facebook]
old TOS (Thanks to Clark!)
(Photo: Jacob Bøtter)
Post a comment
Comments:
That's fairly common language in terms for various sites such as Facebook.
While it gives Facebook some far-reaching and scary possibilities, the basic idea is that things you upload may end up residing on servers outside of Facebook's direct control. These broad rights make it so that you can't sue Facebook for some cached content on some other server, but yes, it also means they can sell your photos or use them in advertising with no recompense to you.
I think a good rule of thumb is to just presume that anything you put on the internet is out there forever and ever regardless if you want it there or not. Follow that logic, and no TOS will catch you off guard.
facebook user privacy and bank account funds of lawyers representing facebook.
biggest inverse relationship EVER
What if I created my Facebook account before they changed their TOS...
They've never asked me to agree to this new TOS, how can this be valid?
@Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier: Seeing that you're continuing to use the service, you have tacitly agreed to their new TOS. Theoretically you could have argued that the change adversely affects you and thus get the stuff deleted, but it's been a while since the 4th.
I think a good rule of thumb is to just presume that anything you put on the internet is out there forever
I'm a bit more cautious, and just presume that anything anybody puts on the internet is out there forever.
I know I'm not the only person who has photographed me nekkid
@Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier: i'm fairly sure that there was a clause when i first signed up stating that "these terms are subject to change at any time without notification"
You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual , non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license.
--
You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
--
Those two sections were contradictory in the first place. How can a irrevocable forever license expire?
Basically your Facebooks bitch, what a bunch of nice guys over there.
I canceled my account close to two years ago how does this apply to me since I canceled my account way before this was in effect? I haven't reactivated my account therefore I haven't renewed my contract with them to this new TOS therefore they are bound by the old TOS so I presume legally I could still ask them to delete all content and they would have to comply.
@ZekeSulastin:
I understand but there was no mention what so ever on Facebook.
If they had warned me at least a week before changing their TOS, maybe I would have removed some pictures or changed some informations. Now it's useless to do so.
(I personnaly don't think Facebook is spying on any of us, seeing how many users they have, it seems impossible they can pin-point one specific user, but I like to think I have a choice somewhere)
I have no problems granting them license to distribute the work in connection with running the service, but this new license is obscene on it's face. Perpetual, unlimited, do-whatever-we-want, paid in full.
I don't think so. I'm in the process of removing anything that I don't want to loose rights to and I will not be uploading any more.
@Ccharles-Antoine Blais Métivier:
"Terms of Use
Date of Last Revision: February 4, 2009.
Welcome to the Facebook Service, a social utility that connects you with the people around you. The Facebook Service (defined below) is operated by Facebook, Inc. and its subsidiaries and affiliates ("us," "we" or "Facebook"). By using or accessing the Facebook Service, you agree that you have read, understand and are bound by these Terms of Use ("Terms"). We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change or delete portions of these Terms at any time without further notice. Your continued use of the Facebook Service after any such changes constitutes your acceptance of the new Terms."
@Rob Weddle: Exactly -- I'm not sure I understand why anyone would think otherwise.
It comes as a shock to all too many people that (in general) anything you put out there will stay out there. It boggles my mind that people willingly want to post incriminating, embarrassing, and unflattering things to Facebook, in full, public view.
It's just like those "we reserve the right to do whatever we want with whatever you send us" disclaimers that magazines, etc. have. If you freely send them your most intimate life details, don't be surprised when they claim the rights to them!
@Tijil: So if you haven't logged in since then, and when you log in the only thing you do is deactivate, you aren't bound by the change in contract.
How does this effect people who do not even have an account and someone else posts their picture. My picture has been posted by a few friends and relatives and I really don't care but some people might.
@Telekinesis123: It would seem to me that you're still bound by the old TOS:
...however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
I interpret that as Facebook still being able to keep copies of all your content. As far as I know, they've always claimed that right, but never had the selling, publishing, etc. wording in there.
@Rob Weddle: That's a good rule of thumb: that if something is on the internet, it is not private anymore. But I think Facebook's actions could indeed catch someone off guard---because now they as-good-as-own your data. So now they can print and sell posters of the pictures you took, turn your posts into advertising jingles, whatever. Make a million bucks, and keep it all. Imagine a fun line of Facebook postcards, or a coffee table book, "The Faces of Facebook." They can do this, and Facebook members themselves won't see a dime, because they gave away a license to do so.
This is why I never joined Facebook and now I never will.
lol ... it sure can be scary
Awww FacistBook ;)
If Facebook wants to use my lame status updates for profit, I couldn't possible give less of a crap.
sigh. This is too easy.
Write up a contract assigning copyright on any and all content you're about to upload to facebook to someone you trust on an exclusive basis.
Then, since you don't have title to the works, you can't pass those rights along to facebook. Easy smeezy.
yet another reason not to sign up for a facebook account. i haven't yet and every week i find another reason not to. now if i could just get my friends to stop entering my email to invite me because now i am getting all sorts of facebook spam emails, that go beyond the invites from my friends
Really? That sucks. I started a Facebook page recently to keep family and friends updated on what's going on with my newborn twin boys; but if I post any pics or whatnot of them Facebook can use them as they see fit in perpetuity? Weak. Time to start my own site instead and again remind myself to start reading TOS's more thoroughly.
@cheviot:
Also in the ToS: "You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses."
So, if you did that, then you (if you wanted to be a real stickler to the ToS), couldn't upload them and/or Facebook could delete them. Either way, it wouldn't be on Facebook, which would kind of defeat the purpose.
Anyone who doesn't respect people's intellectual property can go to hell irrevocably and perpetually.
I post all my photos on a shared hosting account, and I've been getting nagged over not posting all my photos on Facebook. I feel a bit more vindicated because my hosting company doesn't pull that kind of **** on me.
Compare to google's picasa
"9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf."
I know where I'll be uploading my images from now on.
@Plates: Even when you willingly and freely give it to someone else?
I use it regularly, but Facebook still isn't a necessity of life. Your little "25 things" surveys, or the drunken pictures that you took at Johnny's rad party hardly count as intellectual property worth "respecting." Facebook has always claimed the right to retain any information you post. Just like most sites on the internet. Now you just consent that they can do whatever they want with it.
It sucks that there is no opt out clause or anything, but in reality you should never expect that something you intentionally post on a publicly accessible site will ever be private.
Just because a company claims the right to change a contract however it sees fit doesn't mean that the changes are legally unchallengeable. For example, if, instead of the loathsome passages you quoted, Facebook inserted a clause stating that logging on to the service gives it an irrevocable and perpetual right to come to your house and excavate your shrubberies, I doubt that it would be upheld in court. Does their new TOS cross the "shrubbery line"? I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
@snowmoon: Not so fast there. From Picasa's TOS, section 11 (which overrides section 9):
11.1 By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.
and
11.2 You agree that this licence includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
Doesn't sound so different at all, now does it?
Facebook is becoming a profit machine. What used to be a fun way to stay in touch with fellow university students is now a massive, monetizing "social network" ... *shudder*
Maybe if everyone started posting images that don't belong to them, will bring this TOS down. Or everybody just upload Goatse in protest that would probably sort it out.
Don't you have to "re-agree" to any changes they make to this? That's not fair!
@supercereal: How many people actually read these user agreements anyway. They are written by scumbag lawyers to be understood only by other scumbag lawyers.
@supercereal: There is a huge difference from posting on some site that will retain the image and granting facebook a irrevocable and complete license to do whatever it wants... including commercial work, with your images.
Before they would have required your permission to use you likeness on a billboard in times square, the new license allows them to do that without paying you a dime now.
They can sell the images to a third party ( sub license ) as well as profit from using them in a stock photo service if they wished.
@supercereal: First off you leave off the very important part of 11.1
"11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services."
Caompare that to
"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."
With picasa they are using those, limited, grants to run the service. With facebook you are granting ALL rights in perpetuity including using your name and likeness for commercial advertising. They could sell your pictures into a stock service, create new works based on your images, and plaster your images on advertising and you would have no recourse.
Good god, last week my cousin in England asked my 81 year old mother if she had a Facebook account yet so she could add her as a friend. My mother asked me, "what is a Facebook and should I sign up?" Give me a break, this is getting out of hand.
Clarifying question: If I post a link to a YouTube video I made, does Facebook own that as well? I feel like it would fall under the "Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service" part, but I'm not %100 sure.
@Anto103:
Yes comrade! We must rise up against the evil ToS and rebel! Rebel! We will fight them on the beaches! We will fight them in the servers!
Or, y'know, maybe they just wanna use our pics for some goofy promotional material (a la MySpace's frontpage) and don't give a piss for anything else?
@snowmoon: You're already out of luck. These terms went into act on Feb. 4th, which has already passed. You can delete them from your profile, but anything you remove will still be archived on Facebook's servers and be available for them to do whatever you want with. It's too late.
Uhhh... and the intention of its founders was purely altruistic? I'm sure they never planned to make a dime off of the service.
But if you were being sarcastic; well, you kind of failed at that.
First off, the license HAS to be sublicensable. Facebook, like nearly every content provider, uses Akamai to distribute content, including that picture of you-naked-with-the-howler-monkey (hey, I don't judge!).
For Akamai to distribute that content, they have to be granted a license to distribute it, the same as the license you gave Facebook to distribute it. Hence, the license you grant Facebook has to be sublicensable.
Just what you'd expect with the name 'Microsoft' attached to it. Don't they eventually screw all there partners & customers.
Good Christ this shit is retarded.
Either you re-read the agreement every four hours or hire an attorney to do it for you. AMERICA!
Hey Chris, just made a note with your comments on my FB account. Feel free to let me know if you think there is a better way to inform others.
@jjason82: I would like to see them try to uphold that in court if they try. Images were uploaded under the old terms and the new terms are a significant material change. No considerations were tendered for the additional license so I doubt it would hold much water, but I'll be damned to give them any more material either.
License to use your photos against you when you run for office in 20 years