noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
ok, so FB is evil.
...
Any other idea to constructively deal with this issue?
I would like to direct your attention to my post #48 in this thread... 😉
ok, so FB is evil.
...
Any other idea to constructively deal with this issue?
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?Facebook is simply useless. I'm still wondering why so many people are using it.
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.
...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....
...
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.
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
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?
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
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.
I use Facebook, and of course would like to see it improve. You offer nothing constructive but a barrage of weasel words like "greasy."
Why hate so much something you are free to join or not?
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.