Is this how it's normally done!?

[Ballistics]

You linked me what I linked you. Facebook's page prior to that is a statement of what their ToS is for, and what facebook WILL do. It's cut and dry. There's no guess work. You are agreeing to their ToS, but are you seriously implying that their statement of them promptly removing IP infringement isn't at all legally binding to them?

It also says that you allow others to use information, not your content. If that were the case, it would be impossible to claim IP infringement. Which it's not.

Bottom line is, Facebook isn't this big bad IP stealing machine everyone makes it out to be.

 

[Gavjenks]

Facebook's page prior to that

No, you seem to be missing my point. The Terms of Service is the Terms of Service. It is one page long, and it is the only page on their website that claims to be a legal document with regard to the terms of using their service.

Any other page is not part of the legal document, and is thus not necessarily binding like it would be if it had been in the ToS itself, but is instead simply a policy, subject to whimsical change.

It even SAYS right in the Terms of Service:

This Statement makes up the entire agreement between the parties regarding Facebook, and supersedes any prior agreements.

The other page you linked was NOT part of the actual ToS. Even though it talks about it, that doesn't matter. Not a legal document. Too bad. Not relevant. Only text on that one single page matters, and you have yet to quote any part of it that says they will in fact remove any such content .

And even if you did, you'd still have to show why the bride in the OP even counts as having violated copyright in the first place, and how you would get around the other 18 loopholes that prevent facebook from having to give up their license even then. (So far, pretty much every post, I've explained a brand new additional loophole that singlehandedly is enough to make all the rest of the conversation irrelevant, and you're still arguing the very first one and ignoring all the rest)





And on that note, here's yet ANOTHER layer of loopholes on top of all the ones I pointed out before, that I didn't notice before, because it was in a different section from the copyright and privacy stuff:

If we fail to enforce any of this Statement, it will not be considered a waiver.

^

Which means that even if they did have a line in their ToS where it said "We WILL remove the content from the 3rd party" (which they don't), they could still simply choose not to enforce the part of their terms, and the rest (including the part where they get an unlimited worldwide transferable royalty free license!) would still be binding.

Lol. Mark Zuckerburg is a douche.

 

[Ballistics]

No, you seem to be missing my point

Oh no, I get your point very well. That statement talking about them removing infringing content was on the prior page, but the post that you own all of your content and no one else is in the ToS which I linked.

This Statement makes up the entire agreement between the parties regarding Facebook, and supersedes any prior agreements.

The fact remains, that facebook does not own your work and there's nothing that anyone can say that changes that. There's nothing in there that says they have the right to modify or sell your work, and nothing that says that you give others the right to use your work if it's posted there. And even with all of their ToS relieving them of any liability, they still can't say one thing on one page and not follow through.

If you are overly concerned that the facebook monster might take your work, then don't post your work on there. But either way you look at it, your work is as safe on facebook, as it is anywhere else on the internet.

 

[Gavjenks]

you own all of your content

Yes, it does say you own all your content. Nor did I ever claim it didn't, or that you don't own your content.

But so what? Owning your own content is useless when another company has a worldwide, unlimited, transferable, royalty free license to do whatever they want with that content.

You seem to be confused about what a license is? Somebody else having an unrestricted license on the content you own is not them owning it. Yet it is also anything BUT "safe" for you.


In practice, if you have any sufficiently valuable image, facebook could and probably would make all of the money off of it. Not because you wouldn't be ALLOWED to sell it (you could ALSO sell it since you would still own the original copyright), but because facebook is a massive social media company with thousands of business contacts that you don't have, billions in marketing machinery that you don't have, and billions in raw capital that you don't have, and they would steamroll over you in a head-to-head competition to sell the content most efficiently.

 

[Gavjenks]

Also, you might have no idea if facebook were doing this already to people.

Nowhere does it say they have to NOTIFY you if they sell your content to somebody. They could be selling it right this very moment, and you might have no ideas.

Even those people who did happen to find out wouldn't be able to complain about it very easily. If they posted complaints on facebook, facebook could just delete them, AND send them a cease and desist letter, AND potentially sue them for slander, depending on how they worded their complaint (for instance, if they suggested facebook was doing anything illegal). It's even possible (and happens all the time) that as part of a slander settlement, a court could place a gag order on you from mentioning it again, and if you were caught saying anything false or slanderous again, you could go to jail.

I'm not saying any of this necessarily happens. But it could. If I were facebook, I would routinely sell off minor images if I could do so in a way that would be unlikely to be detected by the author of the content (e.g., sell images from a guy in the US to somebody in Korea for local advertising). And occasionally when one image was very valuable, I might risk selling it where the author might see it, and then watch them like a hawk.

 

[Ballistics]

You seem to be confused about what a license is.

Stop making assumptions of what I am and am not confused about. Your condescension stinks.

I know very well what a license for USE is. It's not a license to sell or modify. It's a license to use the work as is.

 

[Ballistics]

Also, you might have no idea if facebook were doing this already to people.

Nowhere does it say they have to NOTIFY you if they sell your content to somebody. They could be selling it right this very moment, and you might have no ideas.

Even those people who did happen to find out wouldn't be able to complain about it very easily. If they posted complaints on facebook, facebook could just delete them, AND send them a cease and desist letter, AND potentially sue them for slander, depending on how they worded their complaint (for instance, if they suggested facebook was doing anything illegal). It's even possible (and happens all the time) that as part of a slander settlement, a court could place a gag order on you from mentioning it again, and if you were caught saying anything false or slanderous again, you could go to jail.

I'm not saying any of this necessarily happens. But it could. If I were facebook, I would routinely sell off minor images if I could do so in a way that would be unlikely to be detected by the author of the content (e.g., sell images from a guy in the US to somebody in Korea for local advertising). And occasionally when one image was very valuable, I might risk selling it where the author might see it, and then watch them like a hawk.

No, they couldn't do any of that.

Edit: They could... and then the owner of that content could sue for a ridiculous amount of money, and win. There's nothing in that ToS that protects them from anything.
A girl recently sued for text messages sent to her phone via facebook. $1500 per text. But she had to agree to those texts to receive them. There's nothing on earth that protects them from jackpot justice. On top of that - The person I responded to said that facebook OWNED your content, which is what I was referring to. I never said you said that.

 

[Gavjenks]

I know very well what a license for USE is. It's not a license to sell or modify. It's a license to use the work as is.

Then you're not reading the same document I am. Here are the exact words:

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).

1) Nowhere does the phrase "as is" appear anywhere in that text.
2) Nowhere does it say anything about not being allowed to modify your content. Modifying your content is "using" it, which they explicitly say they can do. So unless they waive the right to modify in particular, they can.
3) It says "sublicensable" and "nonexclusive" which means they can give another identical license to a third party without giving up their own or affecting your copyright. And since it says nothing about any restrictions on money changing hands, they are free to do this in exchange for a fee. This is known as "selling" something...

You're just making up all kinds of terms of an imaginary license which only exists in your head. Look at what is written on the page! None of the things you said are in the document ^

 

[Ballistics]

And you're a real snide ******* who thinks he can get out of everything with semantics. I didn't make up any term you dick.

license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).

Does not say to sell, does not say to modify. It says to USE.

No where does it say to sell, and no where does it say to modify.

 

[Gavjenks]

Edit: They could... and then the owner of that content could sue for a ridiculous amount of money, and win. There's nothing in that ToS that protects them from anything.
A girl recently sued for text messages sent to her phone via facebook. $1500 per text. But she had to agree to those texts to receive them. There's nothing on earth that protects them from jackpot justice. On top of that - The person I responded to said that facebook OWNED your content, which is what I was referring to. I never said you said that.

Could you link to this story please? I googled "girl sued facebook texts 1500" and got nothing at all. I would like to see the details of the case before commenting.

And yes, you are right that they do not own your content. Not that that matters at all for any practical purposes.

 

[Ballistics]

Edit: They could... and then the owner of that content could sue for a ridiculous amount of money, and win. There's nothing in that ToS that protects them from anything.
A girl recently sued for text messages sent to her phone via facebook. $1500 per text. But she had to agree to those texts to receive them. There's nothing on earth that protects them from jackpot justice. On top of that - The person I responded to said that facebook OWNED your content, which is what I was referring to. I never said you said that.

Could you link to this story please? I googled "girl sued facebook texts 1500" and got nothing at all. I would like to see the details of the case before commenting.

And yes, you are right that they do not own your content. Not that that matters at all for any practical purposes.

Find it yourself.

 

[Gavjenks]

And you're a real snide ******* who thinks he can get out of everything with semantics. I didn't make up any term you dick.

license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).

Does not say to sell, does not say to modify. It says to USE.

No where does it say to sell, and no where does it say to modify.

Dictionary.com:

use (y

z)v. used, us·ing, us·es
v.tr.1. To put into service or apply for a purpose; employ.

2. To avail oneself of; practice: use caution.

3. To conduct oneself toward; treat or handle: "the peace offering of a man who once used you unkindly" (Laurence Sterne).
4. To seek or achieve an end by means of; exploit: used their highly placed friends to gain access to the president; felt he was being used by seekers of favor.

5. To take or consume; partake of: She rarely used alcohol.




Emphasis (both) mine. Selling an image is achieving an end (making money, the point of a company) by means of the image. Thus, it is using the image.
Similarly, modifying an image is achieving an end (getting a more useful version of the image for your purposes) by means of the image. Thus, it is using the image.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to see how both of these could also be discussed in terms of "applying for a purpose."




If a legal document does not define its terms, then they are free to be interpreted by a judge as any possible way a normal person might use them. Selling and modifying are both obviously normal usages of the term "use." And facebook's high powered attorneys will make that crystal clear to the court if it comes to that.

Find it yourself.

I tried. As far as I can tell it doesn't exist, and thus doesn't support your argument. Anybody else reading the thread is free to also try reasonable search terms and come to their own conclusions.

(I'm not saying it doesn't exist. Just not via any obvious search terms form your description. Was it a woman, not a girl? Were the amounts of money different? No way of knowing)

 

[Ballistics]

And you're a real snide ******* who thinks he can get out of everything with semantics. I didn't make up any term you dick.

license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License).

Does not say to sell, does not say to modify. It says to USE.

No where does it say to sell, and no where does it say to modify.

Dictionary.com:

use (y

z)v. used, us·ing, us·es
v.tr.1. To put into service or apply for a purpose; employ.

2. To avail oneself of; practice: use caution.

3. To conduct oneself toward; treat or handle: "the peace offering of a man who once used you unkindly" (Laurence Sterne).
4. To seek or achieve an end by means of; exploit: used their highly placed friends to gain access to the president; felt he was being used by seekers of favor.

5. To take or consume; partake of: She rarely used alcohol.




Emphasis (both) mine. Selling an image is achieve an end (making money, the point of a company) by means of the image. Thus, it is using the image.
Similarly, modifying an image i achieving an end (getting a more useful version of the image for your purposes) by means of the image. Thus, it is using the image.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to see how both of these could also be discussed in terms of "applying for a purpose."




If a legal document does not define its terms, then they are free to be interpreted by a judge as any possible way a normal person might use them. Selling and modifying are both obviously normal usages of the term "use." And facebook's high powered attorneys will make that crystal clear to the court if it comes to that.

Find it yourself.

I tried. As far as I can tell it doesn't exist, and thus doesn't support your argument. Anybody else reading the thread is free to also try reasonable search terms and come to their own conclusions.

Selling and modifying are both obviously normal usages of the term "use."

How many licenses have you written for your photography?

 

[Gavjenks]

How many licenses have you written for your photography?

About 6, although they are all very similar. They are model and property releases, which I keep in hard copy in my camera bag until they are filled out, then I file them at home. All photographers who shoot human subjects (or identifiable properties) should carry and use model releases and property releases, if they intend to sell any of their images.

In some cases these include licenses (such as if somebody paid me for images, in which case I'll give them full rights to do whatever they want with it), in some cases not (such as if I paid the model and don't want them mucking with my images.)

I have also written Terms of Service for a couple (small) companies before who couldn't afford a lawyer.

And like any normal literate adult, I of course interact with licenses as a signing party every day almost. Leases, services, licenses for publishing articles, blah blah, and educate myself about how they work.

What's your point?

 

[Ballistics]

I tried. As far as I can tell it doesn't exist, and thus doesn't support your argument. Anybody else reading the thread is free to also try reasonable search terms and come to their own conclusions.

You didn't try very hard. At all.

http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=historical

I'm done with this convo though, especially since you've been such a condescending schmuck this whole time.