Beware Facebook's New Terms of Service

DustyWalker said:
Facebook is simply useless. I'm still wondering why so many people are using it.
Click to expand...
Why do they want to join/be part of Big Brother shows, Talent XX (country), Voice of XX (country) etc etc, Must be a celeb! Most of these brainwashes doesnt understand this. Privacy and wanting to keep things private seems forbidden and tabu these days, just like homosexuality was in the days i reccon?
 
I'm a fairly recent user of FB and nothing I have read here really surprises me or would have surprised when I started there a year or so ago.

It's not for photographers, it's a social media site that can host photos and if they want the low res rubbish that exists there good luck to them. Anything you upload to FB gets the crap compressed out of it and the appearance of your pics there is horrible I've noticed.

If you don't like FB vote with your internet connection and stay away from it ... host your real pics elsewhere and stop twisting and turning at night wondering what they might be doing with that shot of the turkey and cranberry bagel you posted the other day from your i-phone during lunch! :)
 
Murchu said:
Not sure about the new terms, but generally I operate under the assumption that any operators of "free" services are out to monetise me. You can then go two ways, either avoid "free" services altogether, or instead take precautions and use such services in ways that minimise your exposure to their efforts to use you. I'm of the latter persuasion, I go in with my eyes wide open, remain cynical, and take appropriate precautions.
Click to expand...

Wise words. I choose to avoid Facebook, but do have a few social media accounts where I hardly ever post, just browse.
 
I joined Facebook several years ago when I moved cities, back to my place of origin / earlier residence, and wanted a mechanism to find old friends with whom I had lost touch. It worked OK for that purpose but in a security and privacy scare (following FB changes that disadvantaged members' privacy) I "deleted" my account or so I thought.

Recently I was more or less coerced to join again as I wanted to do something online that required FB membership. I found that my account had NOT been deleted - only inactivated. I gather there is no means of deleting your FB membership. This p#ssed me off big time.

But what really p#ssed me off is how boring, boring, boring, boring the site is - and the spam is constant. How ANYONE can be willing to use this cr#p is beyond me. Its rubbish. Hence I will "delete" my account again shortly - I have no desire to be associated with it. I encourage everyone to do the same - do you really want to tell the world what you had for lunch, or whether you have had a bowel movement today. Its about on that level in my view.
 
I suppose it would be silly to remind people that you don't have to put your entire life, or your life's work, on Facebook. You can use it for particular things where that is convenient, and perhaps ignore it the rest of the time. I opened a FB account several months ago but didn't use it - just looked around.

Recently I was invited by a friend to photograph some BTS (behind-the-scenes) stills at a music video shoot. My friend was the videographer for the shoot. I had not done this before and thought it might be interesting.

So - imagine spending a pretty intense day with a bunch of extroverts who are all caught up in the creative process for a song they like and are working with people they like. There were a few professional and semi-professional actors, directors, singer-songwriter and about a dozen volunteers in various roles from actors, caterers and general dogsbodies. And they all enjoyed being in the picture.

For a pretty shy photographer where people are concerned this was heaven. I shot about 400 frames with the M9 and a couple of rolls of TRI-X. I shot actors in character, broad scenes and intimate portraits, and lots of BTS action. It was fun. I got fed and was given unhindered access and even consulted on lighting. In return I've given my friend and the director license to use any of the photos in the video or to promote the music video or their video-production business. I retain copyright.

After the event I wanted to share the photos with the people involved, and found that one of the actors was on FB. I posted up a few of the best photos and sent him a link and "friend request". That started a flood and I have now been "friended" by most of the people involved and many of their friends. I've enjoyed the feedback on the photos.

But I must say that I haven't felt tempted to treat FB as a photo blog. The highlight of a visit to my FB account is finding a new post by Peter Turnley - now that man makes wonderful photos.
 
Facebook is creepy. I use it to keep in touch with classmates and guys who I knew in the military. Otherwise, it's a creepy, intrusive site. And it's stock is crap.
 
Unfortunately, excellently put...

Unfortunately, excellently put...

RichC said:
...This inevitably affects how young people view copyright: if you put your photo online, don't expect to "own" it!

In summary, if you want to remain a part of modern culture and not end up a victim of the "technological divide" (like my parents who are now feel totally alienated, being unable to operate their old video player let alone cope with the products of the computer age and the mobile revolution!), you'll just have to accept the inevitable and give up worrying about who's doing what with your online data....
...
Click to expand...

I have to agree. Your photos are like your children... Do you want your children exposed online indiscriminately? Guess we have to come to grips with paying for our own site as a business expense... Is that bad?
 
ChrisN said:
I suppose it would be silly to remind people that you don't have to put your entire life, or your life's work, on Facebook. You can use it for particular things where that is convenient, and perhaps ignore it the rest of the time. I opened a FB account several months ago but didn't use it - just looked around.

Recently I was invited by a friend to photograph some BTS (behind-the-scenes) stills at a music video shoot. My friend was the videographer for the shoot. I had not done this before and thought it might be interesting.

So - imagine spending a pretty intense day with a bunch of extroverts who are all caught up in the creative process for a song they like and are working with people they like. There were a few professional and semi-professional actors, directors, singer-songwriter and about a dozen volunteers in various roles from actors, caterers and general dogsbodies. And they all enjoyed being in the picture.

For a pretty shy photographer where people are concerned this was heaven. I shot about 400 frames with the M9 and a couple of rolls of TRI-X. I shot actors in character, broad scenes and intimate portraits, and lots of BTS action. It was fun. I got fed and was given unhindered access and even consulted on lighting. In return I've given my friend and the director license to use any of the photos in the video or to promote the music video or their video-production business. I retain copyright.

After the event I wanted to share the photos with the people involved, and found that one of the actors was on FB. I posted up a few of the best photos and sent him a link and "friend request". That started a flood and I have now been "friended" by most of the people involved and many of their friends. I've enjoyed the feedback on the photos.

But I must say that I haven't felt tempted to treat FB as a photo blog. The highlight of a visit to my FB account is finding a new post by Peter Turnley - now that man makes wonderful photos.
Click to expand...



Thank you for offering a positive facebook experience Chris ... and I agree totally with all your points. :)

Now ... back to the regular vitriol! :rolleyes:
 
zauhar said:
No one has yet to provide an example of what will actually go down with their new terms of service. Is a project manager at a marketing firm really going to use a photo pulled off Facebook without a release? And then use it in an ad on Facebook?

Or is this more about the fact that your photos, including profile photo, inevitably appear alongside ads, and they don't want you to put up a hissy fit because you are "associated" with some commercial activity you don't like? This sounds more like an attempt by FB to shield itself from petulant internet users - like 1+ billion of them.

Randy
Click to expand...

Here you go, this is how you will be used, Randy. Feeling petulant?
 

Attachments

  • everysixminutes.jpg
    everysixminutes.jpg
    25.6 KB · Views: 0
Moving along to what? The thread topic is facebook's rights grab and it's monetizing of it's user's property and likeness. Plus it's greasy attempts to change it's TOS. Are you trying to say that because somebody got their rights abused, it is then ok to abuse people? And that they shouldn't mind it? I'm noticing you keep trying to change the subject and minimize facebook's behaviour. Is that true?
 
Ranchu said:
Moving along to what? The thread topic is facebook's rights grab and it's monetizing of it's user's property and likeness. Plus it's greasy attempts to change it's TOS. Are you trying to say that because somebody got their rights abused, it's ok to abuse people? I'm noticing you keep trying to change the subject and minimize facebook's behaviour. Yes?
Click to expand...

So far no one has shown an example of what Facebook has actually done, or suggested what they will do specifically, along these lines. I really doubt that they will start using peoples' images without a release for commercial ads, no matter what the TOS implies. I think they are setting up broad rights for themselves to nullify potential lawsuits - "My photo appeared somewhere on the same page as ads for an escort service - I have been defamed!"

But that is just an observation about how I expect Facebook will behave - I have an FB account but don't actively use it. The whole enterprise could curl up and die tomorrow, and I would be happy to see that happen.

In fact the whole f--king internet can curl up and die tomorrow - we can all subscribe to the RFF monthly newsletter, and type out little articles to contribute. It will raise the level of discourse!

Randy
 
zauhar said:
So far no one has shown an example of what Facebook has actually done, or suggested what they will do specifically, along these lines. I really doubt that they will start using peoples' images without a release for commercial ads, no matter what the TOS implies. I think they are setting up broad rights for themselves to nullify potential lawsuits - "My photo appeared somewhere on the same page as ads for an escort service - I have been defamed!"

Randy
Click to expand...

You're being so charitable! I gave you an example, it was used as click bait, not an ad but a link to a site with a bunch of ads. Do you not think facebook's management and ceo spend 99% of their time thinking up ways to make money off you, and that this is exactly how they attempt it? Do you think they didn't FIRST decide what they planned to do with these images, and THEN write the new TOS? That's how business works, they don't just flop around trying to avoid lawsuits. Time to pay more attention, imo.
 
Ranchu said:
You're being so charitable! I gave you an example, it was used as click bait, not an ad but a link to a site with a bunch of ads. Do you not think facebook's management and ceo spend 90% of their time trying to make money off you, and that this is exactly how they attempt it? Time to pay more attention, imo.
Click to expand...

My supermarket is also trying to make money off me.
They spend 100% of their time doing just that.
Yet, I fail to see buying milk as being a victim of a demonic operation.

Why hate so much something you are free to join or not?
 
I use Facebook, and of course would like to see it improve. You offer nothing constructive but a barrage of weasel words like "greasy."
Click to expand...

Greasy is a perfect word for their verbiage, it's made to fool the gentleman in the 'ad' I posted, and the young man in yours. People are paid lots of money to write those as greasily as possible as you may know. And wtf consrtuctive am I obliged to provide here? I had nothing to do with these acts.
 
I did a Google image search on your "Gentleman," did not find it on Facebook or anywhere for that matter. The Covenant House ads are all over the place. I was not
able to find the original student in the photo. Both may be stock photos.

As to the second question, you linked to the Covenant House ad... I just grabbed a screen shot.
Click to expand...


The image I posted came from a java ad on thehill.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom