4 ms·

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

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.
- jacobush 7y ago
  Intent matters in law. Facebook knows a substantial portion of their users will not acquire permission. In fact, their UX at every turn is a honeypot, so they doubly know.
- OnlineGladiator 7y ago
  Wouldn't it be similar to any copyright protection claim, similar to YouTube (or Napster, or LimeWire, or MegaUpload, or...)? If they don't legally have the right to share the media, the default action is to remove it without even investigating the claim (because of the scale Facebook and YouTube operate at). Assuming Facebook cannot legally host the media, and they choose to do so after being informed of its contention, they are choosing to say they are legally in the clear (or that they don't care about the law, which seems a lot more likely). IANAL, but it seems simple enough on the surface. Of course Facebook will claim otherwise, and without being required to make it easy to report contentious media very few people will actually do so, and sharing a photo without permission is not the same as copyright protection. I still think the same basic logic applies though.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    Case law already exists on the right of people who appear in photos to stop the photographer from publishing the photos; the issue is not original to the internet at all. If I recall correctly, there is no such right, because it would effectively eliminate photography.

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.

jacobush 7y ago
Intent matters in law. Facebook knows a substantial portion of their users will not acquire permission. In fact, their UX at every turn is a honeypot, so they doubly know.
OnlineGladiator 7y ago
Wouldn't it be similar to any copyright protection claim, similar to YouTube (or Napster, or LimeWire, or MegaUpload, or...)? If they don't legally have the right to share the media, the default action is to remove it without even investigating the claim (because of the scale Facebook and YouTube operate at). Assuming Facebook cannot legally host the media, and they choose to do so after being informed of its contention, they are choosing to say they are legally in the clear (or that they don't care about the law, which seems a lot more likely). IANAL, but it seems simple enough on the surface. Of course Facebook will claim otherwise, and without being required to make it easy to report contentious media very few people will actually do so, and sharing a photo without permission is not the same as copyright protection. I still think the same basic logic applies though.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  Case law already exists on the right of people who appear in photos to stop the photographer from publishing the photos; the issue is not original to the internet at all. If I recall correctly, there is no such right, because it would effectively eliminate photography.