| Tech Support
|
[
Tech Support ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
3207 |
|
|
Date: June 09, 2014 at 07:15:12
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: any lawyers out there? |
|
|
I saw this posted on a facebook page of an acquaintance of mine and I'm wondering if it has any legal weight?
I vaguely remember signing away my legal rights when I signed up for an account (which I never use). So I'm wondering if that contract would nullify anything like this, cuz I'm thinking it might, but am clueless:
"In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention).
For commercial use of the above, my written consent is needed at all times!
By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook's direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute)."
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3208] [3210] [3211] [3212] [3213] [3216] [3217] [3219] [3220] [3224] [3226] [3227] [3221] [3214] [3218] [3215] [3209] |
|
3208 |
|
|
Date: June 09, 2014 at 07:51:08
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: any lawyers out there? |
|
|
|
not a lawyer but my guess is you'd have to submit a condition like that as part of the signup process...I've been driven to add stuff like that when I sign up for stuff but I doubt it would hold up in court...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3210] [3211] [3212] [3213] [3216] [3217] [3219] [3220] [3224] [3226] [3227] [3221] [3214] [3218] [3215] [3209] |
|
3210 |
|
|
Date: June 09, 2014 at 14:49:35
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: any lawyers out there? |
URL: http://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/privacy.asp |
|
thanks. Just found this, in case anyone is wondering.
excerpt:
"Origins: Messages about protecting your copyright or privacy rights on Facebook by posting a particular legal notice to your Facebook wall are similar to an item which circulated several years ago positing that posting a similar notice on a web site would protect that site's operators from prosecution for piracy. In both cases the claims were erroneous, an expression of the mistaken belief that the use of some simple legal talisman — knowing enough to ask the right question or post a pertinent disclaimer — will immunize one from some undesirable legal consequence. The law just doesn't work that way.
Facebook users cannot retroactively negate any of the privacy or copyright terms they agreed to when they signed up for their accounts, nor can they unilaterally alter or contradict any new privacy or copyright terms instituted by Facebook, simply by posting a contrary legal notice on their Facebook walls. Moreover, the fact that Facebook is now a publicly traded company (i.e., a company that has issued stocks which are traded on the open market) or an "open capital entity" has nothing to do with copyright protection or privacy rights. Any copyright or privacy agreements users of Facebook have entered into with that company prior to its becoming a publicly traded company or changing its policies remain in effect: they are neither diminished nor enhanced by Facebook's public status.
Further, the concerns about copyright ownership which these types of notices are intended to address are unfounded. In response to rumors about copyright issues that began circulating in November 2012 after Facebook announced the company was considering revoking users' rights to vote on proposed policy changes, Facebook issued a statement noting:
There is a rumor circulating that Facebook is making a change related to ownership of users' information or the content they post to the site. This is false. Anyone who uses Facebook owns and controls the content and information they post, as stated in our terms. They control how that content and information is shared. That is our policy, and it always has been. Click here to learn more - www.facebook.com/policies.
Similarly, ABC News reported:
[Users worried that] Facebook will own their photos or other media are posting [a frightful message] — unaware that it is a hoax. Here's the truth: Facebook doesn't own your media.
"We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts — when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. "Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings."
Brad Shear, a Washington-area attorney and blogger who is an expert on social media, said the message [that Facebook users are posting to their walls is] "misleading and not true." He said that when you agree to Facebook's terms of use you provide Facebook a "non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any content you post. You do not need to make any declarations about copyright issues since the law already protects you. The privacy declaration [in this message] is worthless and does not mean anything."
As techtalk noted of Facebook users' current privacy rights:
The fact is that Facebook members own the intellectual property (IP) that is uploaded to the social network, but depending on their privacy and applications settings, users grant the social network "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)."
Facebook adds, "[t]his IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."
While the social network does not technically own its members content, it has the right to use anything that is not protected with Facebook's privacy and applications settings. For instance, photos, videos and status updates set to public are fair game.
Before you can use Facebook, you must indicate your acceptance of that social network's legal terms, which includes its privacy policy and its terms and policies. You cannot alter your acceptance of that agreement, nor can you restrict the rights of entities who are not parties to that agreement, simply by posting a notice to your Facebook account or citing the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) or the Berne Convention. (One of the common legal talismans referenced above is UCC Section 1-308, which has long been popular among conspiracy buffs who incorrectly maintain that citing it above your signature on an instrument will confer upon you the ability to invoke extraordinary legal rights.)"
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3211] [3212] [3213] [3216] [3217] [3219] [3220] [3224] [3226] [3227] [3221] [3214] [3218] [3215] |
|
3211 |
|
|
Date: June 09, 2014 at 17:01:40
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: any lawyers out there? |
|
|
"We have noticed some statements that suggest otherwise and we wanted to take a moment to remind you of the facts — when you post things like photos to Facebook, we do not own them," Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes said in a statement. "Under our terms you grant Facebook permission to use, distribute, and share the things you post, subject to the terms and applicable privacy settings."
lmsao....
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3212] [3213] [3216] [3217] [3219] [3220] [3224] [3226] [3227] [3221] [3214] [3218] [3215] |
|
3212 |
|
|
Date: June 09, 2014 at 19:07:57
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: any lawyers out there? |
|
|
You have to grant them that permission so that they can transmit it to the other users who wish to view it. In effect, their transmitting the image to a user's computer is "reproducing" your image.
Without you granting them that permission, they cannot legally distribute your copyrighted image.
By signing up for Facebook, you are agreeing to their terms and conditions which include you granting them that license.
You still retain copyright and ownership of the image, but they have permission to use, modify, and distribute the image so that others who load your Facebook page can see them.
If you don't want them to have that permission, then don't post your images via Facebook.
I've studied this issue a bit because at one time I had an interest in taking my photography hobby to a more professional level. I read up on copyright law and photographer's rights, and a LOT of license agreements word for word (very boring) for various websites in order to understand exactly what the terms were. I also once had to deal with a website stealing an image from my website and using it for commercial purposes without my consent.
Granting a website such rights is pretty standard in order for the website to serve the function you wish it to, that is, to share your images with others. What you have to watch out for is clauses that allow them to share your imagery with third parties, or to use them "in perpetuity", or that don't explain exactly why they need the rights and what they will do with them.
If you want total control over the use and dissemination of your images on the web, then you have no choice but to host them on your own server and require users to agree to YOUR terms of service before they can have access to them.
That is why many professional photographers have their own websites instead of hosting them with image hosting services. It gives them more flexible control of the management of their intellectual property.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3213] [3216] [3217] [3219] [3220] [3224] [3226] [3227] [3221] [3214] [3218] [3215] |
|
3213 |
|
|
Date: June 09, 2014 at 19:47:03
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: any lawyers out there? |
|
|
"then you have no choice but to host them on your own server"
ayep...there ain't no free lunch...oh, cept here on earthboppin of course...I promise I will never use or distribute anything posted here, even if it is an original thought or creation, without the explicit permission of the thinker, creator or poster...and even then, I will never do such...still tho, legal speak is just hilarious, ain't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3216] [3217] [3219] [3220] [3224] [3226] [3227] [3221] [3214] [3218] [3215] |
|
3216 |
|
|
Date: June 10, 2014 at 07:10:04
From: et, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: any lawyers out there? Why a thought I have be owned by others? |
|
|
I was going to mention that we would have to go into what entails an
original thought or creation? Then there is the whole issue of making
liable 'the creator' for the repercussions that their amuck creations have
on us without our consent… are we entitled to demand they restitute and
pay for the costs of dealing with their stuff?
Why is it that only the first registrant get's the right, and the entitlement?
On a more subtle and pernicious level, Does the authority actually have
the authority or have they usurped it through their own proclamations and
actions?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3217] [3219] [3220] [3224] [3226] [3227] [3221] |
|
3217 |
|
|
Date: June 10, 2014 at 07:33:07
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: any lawyers out there? Why a thought I have be owned by others? |
|
|
"Then there is the whole issue of making liable 'the creator' for the repercussions that their amuck creations have on us without our consent… are we entitled to demand they restitute and
pay for the costs of dealing with their stuff?"
an interesting statement et...take that thought to the highest level...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3219] [3220] [3224] [3226] [3227] [3221] |
|
3219 |
|
|
Date: June 10, 2014 at 07:59:56
From: et, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Interesting statement: take that thought to the highest level... |
|
|
Bopp,
I framed that statement that way in part because you have seemed in the
past to have sought to make liable 'the creator' for the repercussions that
their amuck creations have created … In a way you seem to have sought
to make the tool maker responsible for how the tool be employed by some
amuck operator!
BTW I initially had taken that thought at many levels simultaneously…
personally I believe each be responsible for what they do… though the
core issue isn't on finding who or what's to blame the core issue be on
what to do with the situation…
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3220] [3224] [3226] [3227] [3221] |
|
3220 |
|
|
Date: June 10, 2014 at 08:09:52
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Interesting statement: take that thought to the highest level... |
|
|
|
the tool maker made a faulty tool that can only produce faulty products...there is no blame, insurance companies need not worry...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3224] [3226] [3227] [3221] |
|
3224 |
|
|
Date: June 10, 2014 at 10:30:57
From: et, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Interesting statement: take that thought to the highest level... |
|
|
the tool maker made a faulty tool that can only produce faulty products…
said one faulty product to explain away the products faults … in actuality
the tool maker made a tool that can produce all sort of products … in the
hands of an artist the tool produces art… in the hands of the wise the tool
produces wisdom… in the hands of the lovely the tool produces love…
there is an expression I heard some contraction workers employ: that's
not dew to the machine, it's the monkey operating it! that one faulty
product can explain away the products faults does little to correct them
matters...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3226] [3227] |
|
3226 |
|
|
Date: June 10, 2014 at 10:38:08
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Interesting statement: take that thought to the highest level... |
|
|
|
it is quite apparent you know nothing about love et...you just like to talk about it...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3227] |
|
3227 |
|
|
Date: June 10, 2014 at 11:25:32
From: et, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Indeed i like to talk about love… and cultivate it … |
|
|
it's quite apparent to some what I know about this and that…
it's also quite a apparent to some what I don't know …
now the real conundrum involves if it appears to you that I know nothing
about that stuff because of the filters you use or because of the truth of
the matter… of course those who know the truth of the matter and
embrace it know which one it be… and need not be told… the rest will not
benefit from being told the truth of the matter for they will not know the
truth of the matter…with this I will now abstain from further comments in
this tech support forum unless its a tech issue…
be well...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
3221 |
|
|
Date: June 10, 2014 at 08:20:38
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Interesting statement: take that thought to the highest level... |
|
|
|
addendum...what be is what be...the only decision to be made is whether or not to assist in correcting the error
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
3214 |
|
|
Date: June 09, 2014 at 20:38:37
From: Skywise, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: any lawyers out there? |
|
|
"legal speak is just hilarious, ain't it?"
Caveat emptor.
There was a story I heard about years ago where a bunch of people in a small town were trying to sue their small town bank. Seems they had accepted an offer from the bank for a new credit card, but upon receiving their first bill there was a $500 sign up fee. They claimed no one told them.
The judged ruled in favor of the bank because it was in the contract, and the plaintiffs signed the contract.
Read the contract. Read the terms of service.
But be forewarned. "Legalese" is a lot like science, in that the words have a very specific meaning and usage. If you want to understand what the contract means, you're going to have to learn the language a bit. It's not terribly hard with a little practice.
Anyway, regarding the original post, posting such phrases on your Facebook account wouldn't do anything because Facebook as a legal entity did not agree to the term. In fact, I suspect if their legal department saw the postings, they would recommend that the account be shut down immediately as a violation of their TOS.
On the other hand, another story I know of is that a guy was signing up for a bank card and had hand written an additional term on the bottom of the application form. Seems he didn't want his info shared such that he'd be getting a bunch of advertising (aka "junk mail") because of his new card. It was hand written on the form and handed to the bank representative in person. He got the card. Then he started getting the junk mail. He sued the bank. He won because the judge ruled that the bank issuing the card meant they accepted the additional term he hand wrote on the application.
I'm not saying I always agree with the 'game', but it sure helps to use your noggin' and know what you are dealing with. Perhaps a case of "know thy enemy"?
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[3218] [3215] |
|
3218 |
|
|
Date: June 10, 2014 at 07:50:38
From: et, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: any lawyers out there? |
URL: cnn article on |
|
Just as the TOS can change and it's the user responsibility to periodically check and continue
use implies acceptance of the new TOS the user can change the TOS and it's the service provider
responsibility to choose if to continue providing the service with the new terms or refuse to
accept the new terms and terminate providing the service… continuing to provide the service
implies acceptance of the new TOS…
BTW --- if their legal department saw the postings, they would recommend that the account be
shut down immediately because of the liabilities of continuing to provide the service under the
stipulated new TOS … just as users implicitly provide and accept the changes when they
continue to use the service when the provider changes the TOS…
Now there is a distinct difference between having a right and being able to employ it…stated in
a different way though some may not have a right nor consent to enter they may still have the
capacity to enter and there is little 'the victim' can do about it… of course 'the victim' may be
unable to prevent some acts though may well be equipped to deal appropriately with anyone
who does them… that may involve ensnaring and binding 'trespassers', 'intruders' 'disruptors',
'free thinkers'… Individuals do not have to go there, though if they go there they may well be
under that places' 'influences'… of course much of this is mute given that "Legalese" may
involve the subjective appreciation of the judged and the juries … words have very specific
meanings and usage though individuals may well relay on abilities to get clauses into
contracts… Many movies have portrayed this common theme in a humorous way...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
3215 |
|
|
Date: June 09, 2014 at 20:48:59
From: mr bopp, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: any lawyers out there? |
|
|
|
I've done that too (written my own clause on an agreement) but never had to use it...but no one ever noticed...they don't read them either, cept for the signature...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
3209 |
|
|
Date: June 09, 2014 at 09:11:35
From: blindhog, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: any lawyers out there? |
|
|
|
Hmmm. Maybe the rules of this Berner Convention is what I have been hearing about, that people can't disseminate, in mass, postings. It sure seems like a way to handcuff the spread of ideas, a muffling of the population....a sort of way to mantain the "status quo".
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
Tech Support ] [ Main Menu ] |