> I just felt that it was really weak to say that it was fine because the faces aren't an important part of the picture. This was very intentional, because it

> I just felt that it was really weak to say that it was fine because the faces aren't an important part of the picture. This was very intentional, because it is how courts look at the monetization of this kind of content today. Your likeness cannot be commercialized without your consent (which is why things like photo/video releases exist) - that being said, the line determining your importance to the photograph's value is up to what a reasonable person (a judge) would believe. This comparison, while not perfect, was used to preempt an argument from the "$ without permission" angle. -- As a private company, Facebook is free to add this feature for its users. As a citizen: I am free to publish my photo containing your likeness elsewhere until legislatively or judicially prohibited. And then I am free to challenge that censorship (as many have on the commercialization issue) on obvious First Amendment grounds. Aside: I won't get into any European arguments about the "right to be forgotten" - we (USA) don't recognize this as a right.