If you’ve already granted Facebook the irrevocable right to give up your content and likeness, then how can you still have “all rights and permissions?”

You still retain all rights because you still hold the copyright. In the USofA, you can give up copyright by placing something in the public domain, or you must sign away your copyrights via an “instrument of conveyance”. This is discussed in US Code Title 17, Section 204.

I think you’d better read again Facebook’s TOS: “By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.”

What part of “grant to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual world wide license, with the right to SUBLICENSE, to use for ANY purpose, COMMERCIAL, advertising or otherwise” do you not understand?

I don’t have much stake (which isn’t true for so many others) in what I’ve posted on there, so I didn’t particularly care if it is 1984 (my birth-year, so I can’t get too pessimistic about those numerals), because if facebook doesn’t get me, google will, so I might as do what Wendell Berry recommended and make like a fox.

Does this not INHERENTLY IMPLICATE privacy? If I select “only me” as being able to view my photos…Why does that only stand insofar what is viewable in my profile? Is it false advertising for Facebook to imply you have the right to choose who views your content yet still allow people to see your content by OTHER means?

For people who like to play smart by saying “duh”, I question how firmly grounded in reality you are. You are the reason that things like this stand, why they perpetuate and expand their boundaries.

If an 8 year old signs up for facebook (no ’safety’ box or parent can truly prevent what a child fervently intends to do), but does not understand the conditions being that he is legally a minor….how is it that facebook can nonetheless lay claim to his content? He is not even considered mentally capable of forfeiting rights as a minor…

Those who are able to critically think about a subject beyond the depth of the term “duh”, those who can think about the innate ethics and potential consequences NEED to draw the line.

If we let superficial thinkers continue to make the decisions and remain in the majority that dictate what goes…we’re screwed.

Is it possible for us to copyright ourselves somehow? That would be a huge joke on facebook, would it not?

People who try to compare this situation to downloading music illegally or to copying a picture seem to forget one key component. When you download music or copy a picture, it’s usually for you to enjoy-not monetarily profit from (other than saving money).

FACEBOOK, as you have mentioned, claims the right to be able to market and profit monetarily from anyone’s content.

It is absurd to commandeer what people upload on facebook specifically because it is advertised as a social networking site that can be used for sharing things socially. It is not advertised as a GARBAGE BIN for the rights to your own work OR image OR identity.

On that note, perhaps I might sue them for false advertising??

I’m sorry for this unanticipated rant. I dream of a day when people can remember the concept of humanity…using people as a means or motivation to improve humanity-NOT using people as a means to capital gain. Facebook’s new TOS is a blatant demonstration of the ever blurring line between humanity and profit; between intellectual freedom and intellectual slavery.

There was a time when sites like Facebook were innovative and meaningful; they were a fantastic tool for people to connect and grow together at whatever distance.

All good things the greedy man touches are doomed to destroy him in the very end. I ask all to consider the tale of the stone that “enabled” the one who touched it to turn anything else he touched to gold. The greedy man wishing to turn everything to gold shall eventually find himself alone.

(My use of male specific pronouns is for simplicity purposes-not directed at men only).

Thanks for letting me get on my pedestal.

I’m sorry but this is a completely different issue. Alison Chang released her photo under the Creative Commons license – Attribution. Legally Virgin did exactly what they were supposed to do under this license. Miss Chang’s failure to understand the Creative Commons license (and, for the record, a failure that included procuring a Model Release from here friend before releasing the photo under the Creative Commons license – Attribution) has nothing to do with Facebook’s rights grab here.

Alison Change specifically said “You may use this photo commercially” when she released the photo under the CC – Attribution license. This is very very different than Facebook’s moves here.