How do You Feel About Facebook Owning Your Content?

As reported by several sites today, including the Consumerist, Facebook amended its Terms of Service (TOS). Now apparently they own all of the content you uploaded there and use it however they want.

I closed my account after a brief period because of the spam I was getting and to focus more on other networks. I doubt there is anything there of value to them. This issue raises an important question. How do you feel about Facebook owning your content?

Several discussions ensued about the amended language. According to Aaron Brazell at Technosailor, Zuckerberg issued a statement later to clarify the (quiet) action taken.

It looks like Facebook could use better communicators on staff. This is the third time, that I can recall, when they quietly change something and unleash heated discussions by their community members. It's a space free to use, there is a sort of implicit understanding that commerce needs to be part of things.

The second time Facebook faced a bit of music was when they implemented Beacon and forgot to tell users they needed to opt out not to be tracked. As I recall there was a famous case of someone buying an egangement ring and the girl learning about it beore the question culd be popped. Christmas gifts spoiled, etc. I opted out then, completely.

Yes, perhaps these discussions take place when those who are attuned to privacy issues become concerned, as Triston writes in Uptown Uncorked. I think he's a bit too cavalier and personaly side more with his site partner Leslie Poston in preferring Mona's rendition at Pixel Bits.

A little while ago, there were spookier things circulating about Facebook. Even earlier I composed a rant saying that Facebook ain't face time. In that post I came to the defense of blogs. They are the product of our ingenuity and ability to stir critical thought and often enough thoughtful analysis and discourse. And they create the fodder and context for deeper conversations -- here and face to face.

It does take time to consider what to compose, do the appropriate research, write, find suitable images, etc. And potentially your posts will get scraped without proper attribution. But it's your body of work, all collected on your site, building equity and value in one place that can be explored and searched by prospective employers and colleagues.

I know many professionals who use their blog to collect and write about information for a book, for example. Or a thesis, a special project, etc.

What you share on Twitter, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc. is out there, building value and equity for those networks and brands. Yes, sharing allows you to be generous and participate in the growth of the community. Make no mistake, those services are not free, your content is also a cost.

Portability through widgets, and presence within the network may be advantages. However, TOCs or not, your contributions are making those networks stronger, better, more valuable for those who stand to profit monetarily from their investments.

Your benefits are the connections, and the platforms that allow you to make them. What's interesting to note is that all of these networks are growing up and becoming more commercial, in large part due to the fact that that's where people's mailboxes are now. Time and attention online are the new eyeballs.

A couple of days ago, we said that one of the important layers online in addition to content and community online is commerce. I suspect that how you feel about Facebook (or any of these social networks) owning your content is directly proportional to how you feel about community and commerce.

Now the question is - should you be partaking in the commerce piece or are you alright trading content for community and letting the nework do the commerce? How long before everyone has stands and ads on Facebook? Imagine the signal to noise ration then!

Facebook just passed 175 million users.

[new stats on social network rankings, Compete.com]

Comments

[Diego Remus]

Months ago friends were pushing me into Facebook and I still could resist. But some weeks ago I joined it and, first, I enjoyed messaging people with the same last name as mine. But I find it very bad that I cannot stalk (say) throughout profiles, discovering how nice people are. I know it´s reasonable to add only people you know, as on LinkedIn.com, but at least there you can see much of the profile. I understand that Facebook´s "machine" wants to be the Big Brother pointing to us "there´s a friend of yours who likes this, or that". He´s being a kind of knowledge broker, but there are real concerns about that. It´s fine about the interaction design. But, come on: where´s my user experience? Are you trying to build a machine that pretends to be human while prevents us from being?

Hmm, now I´ve got it. Very noticeable. Er, I still post my stuff on it but and I have seen a lot of beautiful faces, friends of my friends, but... I´m not used to the interface. I know it´s a matter of experiencing it, but... you see, there´s something... I see traces of Multiply.com in there, I´ve got reasonable reasons to keep this account on, let´s see.

Aw, yes, and the answer: does Facebook wanna own my status updates? By the way, my social graph? Hohoho! My pictures, well, have been published before somewhere else.

Facebook is just pretending to be Google, but doesn´t know what it takes.

[Guillaume]

FB has a communication problem in the sense that it is completely unable to have a proper dialogue with its users: it is top down communication without possibility to intervene. The only thing that makes them listen to people is fear. It seems to be so in contradiction with the mindset of social media, commerce or not.

[Matt Searles]

I keep thinking I should get more into facebook.. I mostly just go there for people responding to my tweets.. and have some percentage of the people I meet in social media vill there.

My impression of FB TOS, from the start, were such that I'd never put much of any real content up there unless it was like.. for some kinda promotional esk reason.. in which case.. why worry about copy rights on adds..

I think TOS is a serious issue for these kinds of sites.. I think it's something to worry about going forward.. and certainly to be conscious of.. but I'm not supper concerned about it yet.

See.. my view is that you could pretty much make a facebook or twitter in your spare time.. I mean if you had those kind of skills.. and lots of people do.. so for that reason I feel like maintaining dominance is this area is.. well I don't think these companies are really as stable as they are often presumed to be.

And of course once people start demanding a certain amount of data portability.. the ability to bring you're friends from one site to the next.. then things will really be crazy..

So I think that these companies are less insulated from market demands then more traditional business.. and as such.. if the TOS becomes a serious issue in practice.. as a pose to being more something that's sorta threatening.. we'll see better TOS just as a kinda dialectical response.

So for that reason, I don't really worry too too much about it

[Adam Singer]

You don't own any of your content you put into social networks, read all the TOS pages they all say that.

Most people just put text and images onto the web. Imagine how us artists feel when the whole world shares our content without permission.

BUT I have learned to embrace this as an artist, and my whole attitude has changed:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090114/0645323402.shtml

I see no issues with putting my content everywhere and leveraging larger networks to build my community.

[Jocelyn Canfield, ABC]

There are huge legal issues here, most notably privacy and copyright. With respect to copyright, Facebook's new TOS is tantamount the New York Public Library announcing that they now own the copyright to every book that is in their library simply because they created the space for that book to be viewed. There is no legal way they can do this, and there will be voluminous lawsuits if they try to do anything with the content. In terms of privacy, the ONLY legal right they should have to disclose anything in someone's account is if it is indicative of a crime that has been or is about to be committed.

[bruce christensen]

I am a mid-fifties baby boomer who has been given a remarkable gift by these networks. MEMORIES!
I must admit that I was embarrassed the first time my 30-something daughter placed old photos of me on Facebook. Nevertheless, it brought back memories that I consider priceless. Through networks like Facebook I am sharing in some memorable connections with old classmates, business associates and friends. Maybe this "open-sharing thing" is considered old-hat for my kids, but for me it is a magic memory maker. Revisiting these memories may be the reason why 55-year-old women are joining these networks in great numbers.
If Facebook needs to own a portion of my words and some old images of me, I think that I am OK with that. Particularly if it keeps the system churning out memories.

[J.Ro]

Umm if its our creative work we should have the liberty to say that they do not have the right to keep out academic work.

Facebook used to be awesome because it was a way for us old college buds to make like minded friends.

Facebook should back off and listen to the concerns of people who don't want to be "stalked online".

ITs a super creepy feeling, not to mentions that when it opened its membership it had a security breech by allowing all sorts of sex offenders invade its space.

[Carolyn Ann]

I deleted my account. I own the copyright to my work, my words. No one else. I felt as if Facebook wanted to own more of my life than they currently feel entitled to. Basically, because I fed my Flickr and Blogger feeds into Facebook - they now want to own my entire online presence. Bully for them: they can't have it! It's mine.

Not being much for community (now, there's a surprise... :-) ) I didn't get much out of it. On the other hand, I've parted company with communities I did get a lot out of. I'm not exactly good in or with communities. (I just know that's going to come back and bite me at some point!)

Facebook is just a tool; it's not indispensable, and it's certainly not the center of the universe so many think it is! The politically oblivious management of Facebook, up to and (most assuredly) including Andrew Zuckerman, underscore that fact more often than they think.

As always, there's a battle between popular sentiment, commercial greed, er *interests* and what might be a sensible compromise that is no longer possible because someone (with less authority than they thought) was stupid.

I can't help but think that this is the first real impetus for legislative and litigative efforts to define who owns what, online. The various (contradictory) online privacy acts don't really cover who owns the content. It's really a new question; and quite an interesting one, too. :-)

Carolyn Ann

PS Zuckerman needs to understand he's not a corporate owner - he's international politician, and diplomat. Without any portfolio, except the trust his company needs with its subscribers. But he lacks anything like the diplomatic skills needed for such a job.

[Linda Sherman]

Thanks for an important discussion, Valeria.

@Diego - You can browse profiles in Facebook but only in your own network.

What I like about Facebook is that you can target demographics. For SingularCity.com - a print magazine and community for 29+ upscale singles living in Los Angeles, Facebook is an invaluable tool for me.

Please note that in the privacy section you can opt out of "social ads". Otherwise your "friends" can use you in an "ad". This is stimulated by you adding a "fan page".

[Ed]

I have no real issues with it since Facebook has now openly declare it through its TOS. Especially bloggers like ourselves, our content are easily available with a little search or surfing, be it there's Facebook or not.

I will be more concerned about networks which claim to be building a community and that our contents remain our own - BUT YET - hides their genuine interest in profiteering from the sales of such sites.

I've been banned by such a network just last year when I "exposed" it after talking to some folks who knew one or two of the potential buyers. Go through my archive, you'll easily find it. Non-transparency is what I cannot tolerate.

[Gavin Heaton]

I also wrote about this yesterday. It is a challenging area ... especially for content creators. One area where I flag a concern is where bloggers have their content running directly into the Facebook live feed. There are many hundreds that I know who do this.

Under the new TOS that content is available to Facebook in perpetuity.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Diego - that's an interesting statement "Facebook is just pretending to be Google." In what ways? Surely they cannot think they've got the head start on search and ads working together, do they?

@Guillaume - it's funny how if companies behave the way Facebook does they get skewered and customers leave... yet Facebook got 175MM users. And I'd like to reiterate that the service may seem to be free, but at the end of the say it isn't. Good point.

@Matt - you touch upon data portability, which has been something I have thought and written about. We should own our own data. Europe is much more on top of privacy laws than the US, and I think it's a matter of time before the other shoe drops here. My caveat around your points on competition is that as humans we are both social and creatures of habit. So far, Facebook and Twitter have won over other, similar sites on the strength of those two. Guess, we'll see what happens.

@Adam - I did see your awesome story. I know it works from personal experience as well. I think it bears being deliberate about what we choose to share and why. Sometimes a bit of mystery does help as well :) Thank you the link!

@Jocelyn - excellent example of the library. Yes, it drives the concept home very nicely. Thank you for adding to the privacy/copyright conversation, which is one I am quite passionate about.

[Valeria Maltoni]

@Bruce - I was talking about this at the office today and a couple of people said exactly the same thing you did. I know of people who've found long lost cousins and friends. It's almost like a live, talk show in that respect. I like to hold some things near and dear, so it's not for me. But I can see how it does serve a need.

@J.Ro - I'm with you on concerns about privacy and undesired spam. Those were the reasons why, after trying it, I decided it was not my cup of tea.

@Carolyn Ann - maybe communities s well as friendships are transitory, just like the rest of life. As for your thoughts on "who owns the content" I think many are asking the question, but we have found no definite answers. Right now this is situational.

@Linda - thank you for providing an example of use. Here I am talking about a tool I don't use, the nerve!

@Ed - ouch, that is not good. Then again, my mentor once told me that a company that employs you does assume it owns you stock and barrel.

@Gavin - you asked some very good questions in your post. I especially like "How will marketers react when told by their agency that the content from a recent campaign is being used in unsanctioned ways? What happens if there is a retraction required (after all, the content remains the property of Facebook in perpetuity)? How will your brand and reputation be managed well into the future?" I'm quoting it, 'cause it's your content :)

[Carolyn Ann]

Oops. I should have checked the name I accused of incompetence... It's Mark Zuckerberg.

I must say, he seems to backpedal quicker than ever, these days.

Sorry for the mistook! (Next time, I'll try to remember to check.)
Carolyn Ann

[coffee]

sounds like Facebook made the same mistake that Google made with their Chrome (web browser) end user license agreement

[David Silversmith]

Facebook handled the change quite poorly - bad PR and communication. However,
what Facebook tried to do was to change its terms and conditions to reflect technical reality, monetary reality, and plain old reality. And I say more power to them!

There is a solution if you are concerned about the privacy of your data -- don’t make it public! Social media is fun. It offers a great way to make connections -- but it comes with risks! Borrowing liberally from an old bumper sticker, Facebook does not post embarrassing information... people do.

http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=715&doc_id=172217&