5 ms·

This is a reductive argument and does not hold up to both social and legal norms. Making data publicly accessible does not grant users of it carte blanche to u

This is a reductive argument and does not hold up to both social and legal norms. Making data publicly accessible does not grant users of it carte blanche to use it however they wish. The data may be copyrighted: Viewing it does not grant the viewer rights to republish it or claim it as their own work. An image may contain a likeness: Viewing it does not grant the viewer rights to claim endorsement by that individual, or to use their likeness in ways of which the individual does not approve. Beyond copyright and likeness rights, a likeness contains biometric information. Having access to that likeness, at least by the laws of the State of Illinois, does not grant the user rights to biometrics derived from that image.

paulddraper 7y ago
> Viewing it does not grant the viewer rights to republish it or claim it as their own work. But that's not the question here, right? The question is whether I can use my high school yearbook pictures to look for information about my classmates.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  To be fair here, it kind of is the question right? I mean, say you and I are at a neighborhood kid's birthday party with our own kids. Suppose further that you take some pictures, and then post them publicly. Maybe to your FB? Well, I never really gave you permission to use my image on your FB. Let alone publicly. I know that I certainly would never consent to publishing images of my children publicly. Further, I suspect the birthday party's host wouldn't give you permission to post his/her family's images on FB either. So here we are, with all of these people on your public FB. None having signed or even given verbal authorization for any sort of release. And now FB starts running FaceRec on all the information you just gave them. To top it all off, my family and I don't even use FB. Never have. So it really can't even be claimed that we consented to facial recognition via the terms and conditions of service. I only outlined all of that to outline this, just because a person's image is in public doesn't mean that the person consented to the image being public. Especially images taken from private spaces, (like bday parties at some kid's house).
  - rapnie 7y ago
    But beware, if it concerns stuff that is already on FB or on partner sites with similar ToS one has signed away ones rights. IANAL but this is from the FB Terms: >> Specifically, when you share, post or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free and worldwide licence to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy and share it with others. [..] >> When you delete content, it's no longer visible to other users; however, it may continue to exist elsewhere on our systems where: >> - your content has been used by others in accordance with this licence and they have not deleted it (in which case, this licence will continue to apply until that content is deleted); The Privacy Policy states that you are responsible with whom you share your content, after which above license applies. https://m.facebook.com/legal/terms/update https://m.facebook.com/legal/terms/update Edit: misread parent, adapted accordingly
    - detaro 7y ago
      How do the FB Terms apply to the person being photographed and didn't upload them to facebook? None if this applies to them.
      - rapnie 7y ago
        Thx. I misread and already adapted the comment. Can't delete anymore, so I deserve the downvotes.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > So here we are, with all of these people on your public FB. None having signed or even given verbal authorization for any sort of release. And now FB starts running FaceRec on all the information you just gave them. To top it all off, my family and I don't even use FB. Never have. So it really can't even be claimed that we consented to facial recognition via the terms and conditions of service. > I only outlined all of that to outline this, just because a person's image is in public doesn't mean that the person consented to the image being public. But what part of this would, even hypothetically, give you a cause of action against Facebook? What's Facebook supposed to have done wrong? You have a cause of action against your friend who illegitimately provided your photos to Facebook, not against Facebook who relied on the legal assurance your friend provided that he had the right to post those photos.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

paulddraper 7y ago

> Viewing it does not grant the viewer rights to republish it or claim it as their own work. But that's not the question here, right? The question is whether I can use my high school yearbook pictures to look for information about my classmates.

bilbo0s 7y ago
To be fair here, it kind of is the question right? I mean, say you and I are at a neighborhood kid's birthday party with our own kids. Suppose further that you take some pictures, and then post them publicly. Maybe to your FB? Well, I never really gave you permission to use my image on your FB. Let alone publicly. I know that I certainly would never consent to publishing images of my children publicly. Further, I suspect the birthday party's host wouldn't give you permission to post his/her family's images on FB either. So here we are, with all of these people on your public FB. None having signed or even given verbal authorization for any sort of release. And now FB starts running FaceRec on all the information you just gave them. To top it all off, my family and I don't even use FB. Never have. So it really can't even be claimed that we consented to facial recognition via the terms and conditions of service. I only outlined all of that to outline this, just because a person's image is in public doesn't mean that the person consented to the image being public. Especially images taken from private spaces, (like bday parties at some kid's house).
- rapnie 7y ago
  But beware, if it concerns stuff that is already on FB or on partner sites with similar ToS one has signed away ones rights. IANAL but this is from the FB Terms: >> Specifically, when you share, post or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free and worldwide licence to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate and create derivative works of your content (consistent with your privacy and application settings). This means, for example, that if you share a photo on Facebook, you give us permission to store, copy and share it with others. [..] >> When you delete content, it's no longer visible to other users; however, it may continue to exist elsewhere on our systems where: >> - your content has been used by others in accordance with this licence and they have not deleted it (in which case, this licence will continue to apply until that content is deleted); The Privacy Policy states that you are responsible with whom you share your content, after which above license applies. https://m.facebook.com/legal/terms/update https://m.facebook.com/legal/terms/update Edit: misread parent, adapted accordingly
  - detaro 7y ago
    How do the FB Terms apply to the person being photographed and didn't upload them to facebook? None if this applies to them.
    - rapnie 7y ago
      Thx. I misread and already adapted the comment. Can't delete anymore, so I deserve the downvotes.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > So here we are, with all of these people on your public FB. None having signed or even given verbal authorization for any sort of release. And now FB starts running FaceRec on all the information you just gave them. To top it all off, my family and I don't even use FB. Never have. So it really can't even be claimed that we consented to facial recognition via the terms and conditions of service. > I only outlined all of that to outline this, just because a person's image is in public doesn't mean that the person consented to the image being public. But what part of this would, even hypothetically, give you a cause of action against Facebook? What's Facebook supposed to have done wrong? You have a cause of action against your friend who illegitimately provided your photos to Facebook, not against Facebook who relied on the legal assurance your friend provided that he had the right to post those photos.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]