Search News


Browse Archives

News

About Face

February 18, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

UPDATED

Facebook will revise a new terms of service agreement that had raised privacy concerns for users and trademark worries for colleges, the company announced early Wednesday.

After a barrage of complaints, Facebook scrapped a new agreement that had granted the company indefinite rights to material posted by users. The company will restore the language of its prior agreement, which states that Facebook will lose any rights to posted material if users discontinue their accounts.

The agreement, first highlighted by the Consumerist Web site, raised potential concerns for colleges that often use trademarked logos to market themselves on Facebook. Under the agreement, the site had an “irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive” license with the right to sublicense or “use, copy, publish, stream, store … and distribute” any content users posted online.

In a newly posted "Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities," the company sought to alleviate any concerns about users' photos or wall posts being commercialized.

"You own your information, Facebook does not," the statement said. "This includes your photos and all other content."

Brad Ward, who aids colleges with Web-based marketing, quickly sounded the alarm for higher ed Monday on his blog, squaredpeg.com.

“How does this affect colleges and universities?” Ward asked. “One thought: could Facebook come out with a line of clothing with university logos because someone has uploaded it? I’m no legal beagle, but it seems like they’re looking for more ways to monetize and the possibilities are endless.”

Greg Lastowka, an associate professor at Rutgers University School of Law who is writing a book about law and online communities, said the possibility of Facebook using its prior agreement to commercialize college logos was remote -- but real. While most college's logos are protected by trademark laws, placing them on Facebook under the former agreement posed risks, he said.

"Facebook has significant incentives, at least at present, not to attempt to commercialize school logos that are posted on its website. So, as a practical matter, I doubt Facebook would currently commercialize posted school logos," Lastowka wrote in an e-mail Tuesday. "But good contract lawyers focus on worst-case scenarios in the future because those are the situations where clients end up in litigation."

"The copyright license granted to Facebook under its [former] terms of service, if those terms [were] enforceable, would seem to give Facebook a perpetual license to use uploaded logos," he added.

Charlie Henn, an Atlanta lawyer who has represented universities in trademark cases, said Tuesday that he was doubtful courts would have sided with Facebook if the company started claiming rights to university logos. That said, there were potential implications for the published works of faculty or other university employees.

“I question whether a court would allow that [agreement] to be extended to a trademark,” Henn said. “I think the bigger concern for universities is going to be with regard to copyrighted material; so if people are blogging or posting papers for comments, you’d hate to see Facebook claim rights to work that was produced by university personnel.”

Facebook Initially Downplayed Agreement

News of the new agreement prompted quick furor, and by Wednesday morning a Facebook group protesting the changes had nearly 83,000 members.

The company's initial response to the protest was clarification, not revision. Maintaining the necessity of the new agreement, the company merely provided a statement that assured “We are not claiming and have never claimed ownership of material that users upload.”

Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s founder, sought to clarify matters on his blog Tuesdayas well. While Zuckerberg asked users to "trust" that the company wouldn't misuse information posted on the site, he stopped short of agreeing to make any changes to the new agreement.

“In reality, we wouldn't share your information in a way you wouldn't want,” he wrote. “The trust you place in us as a safe place to share information is the most important part of what makes Facebook work.”

As Zuckerberg explained it, Facebook required the license to “help” users share the content they post online with their Facebook friends. The company still maintains that it needs those rights in order to share the information, but has overtly stated that "we don't claim to own your information" and won't share information once an account is deactivated.

Siva Vaidhyanathan, an associate professor of media studies and law at the University of Virginia, said the new agreement merely pulled the curtain back on the Facebook business model. The company profits by learning more and more about users through their profiles and friends, and the agreement was a logical extension of that model, he said.

“This change fundamentally reveal[ed] the real nature of Facebook,” said Vaidhyanathan, author of the forthcoming book The Googlization of Everything. “Facebook effectively hides its role as consumer information aggregator and profiler, which is really how it’s supposed to make money. It takes all of these expressed preferences that we list, and it puts them into a big database and it starts analyzing and predicting what we might like … in hopes that it can target ads to individuals.”

Hoping to reach out to students, colleges and universities now frequently create official Facebook pages. Doing so has already created some headaches for higher education officials, who were none too pleased to learn that marketers were creating their own “official” pages – complete with university logos – in order to market to students. By getting into the business of marketing themselves on Facebook, college officials may invite further challenges to trademarked material, Vaidhyanathan said.

“If you don’t enforce your exclusive rights to trademark you are in danger of going generic,” he said. “That’s a real danger in trademark. It’s one of things that should make universities think twice about doing official pages.”

“I can’t say it’s definitely going to be a problem,” he added. “But I’m certainly not going to say it’s not going to be a problem.”

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on About Face

  • Posted by Art Esposito on February 18, 2009 at 9:30am EST
  • blah, blah, blah...

    This sound to me like another batch of experts trying to be the first to sound the Facebook death knell. this whole phenomenon is beginning to take on an urban legend-like quality similar to the impetus to forward the latest virus hoax warning to everyone in your in-box only to find later that it was, in fact, a hoax.

    The people at Facebook know that they are the most popular OSN in existence and aren't about to start usurping the rights of their users whom them know will virtually "shut them down" if they cross that sort of line. And as for those poor universities who stand to lose rights to official logos or content--police yourselves. There are many and varied ways in which to engage student populations on Facebook without posting things to which you want to maintain exclusive rights. think of Lennon and McCartney when they childishly thought that their songs belonged to universe only to see young Mr. Jackson buying their copyrights by the middle 1980s--protect any "intellectual property" over which you want to maintain total control.

    Perhaps universities could take the argument one step further and accept that you shouldn't be pushing too hard in these social media spaces in the first place. The last thing an engagement-minded university should do is try to create too official a profile--millennial generation students are walking spam filters and will relegate you to their proverbial "trash folder" if you strike too "institutional" a pose in their social network spaces.

  • Actually...
  • Posted by Amanda Jones on February 18, 2009 at 10:26am EST
  • Art, this is NOT a hoax: http://www.facebook.com/terms.php. There have been news stories all around and even a pending complaint to the FTC: http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=75735089008&h=HnTWy&u=Fzc0y.

    As for your concern about universities' usage of fb, social networking has been extremely successful as a marketing tool, Indeed, Facebook presence seems to be a marker of legitimacy these days. Silly? Perhaps. However, these universities are simply following a key rule of marketing: meet your customers where they are, 'cuz they're not gonna magically show up at your door!

  • Copyrighted Photography?
  • Posted by Heather B. , SEO Specialist on February 18, 2009 at 10:45am EST
  • You check this box when you upload photos to Facebook: "I certify that I have the right to distribute these photos and that they do not violate the Terms of Use." A professional photographer has taken several photos of me, and has granted me limited licensing to post them online in low resolution. I do not own the copyright, but I do have the right to distribute the photos within that medium because the photographer said so. Does Facebook get to use his pictures and violate his copyright of the photos filed with the Library of Congress simply because I upload them to my profile? Certainly if I do not own the copyright in the first place, by uploading them I do not transfer the unlimited copyright to Facebook? Right? ... ... Right?

  • Not Suggesting It a Hoax
  • Posted by Art Esposito on February 18, 2009 at 11:30am EST
  • Amanda, i never suggested it was a hoax--i claimed the hysteria that everyone is leaping to is similar to that which accompanies the forwarding of virus hoax emails without fact-checking. If you read Zuckerberg's blog this morning, you'll find facebook is responding (and faster than usual):
    http://blog.facebook.com/

    You can also check out this blog for a nice take on the topic:
    http://brief.glongest.org/2009/02/facebook-tos/

    It would take too long to fully address your claims about Universities jumping on the facebook-marketing band wagon. Let it me try to be brief. Much research supports the observation that universities using OSN sites to market can serve to "clog the drain" and alienate current students, thereby leading to their virtual rejection of the University. Further extrapolation of said statistics will show that the more disengaged a student becomes from the university, the lower her/his likelihood of success and persistence in college. I don't mean to overplay my hand here, but I personally wish universities wouldn't market on facebook. I've used this OSN for nearly five years in my role as an academic advisor and have seen the disengagement that results from the "spam filter" effect I cited in my earlier post. My job is easier and my students' success more real when Universities are careful with their online profiles and allow their students' success to be their best form of advertising and marketing.

  • Faceless Book
  • Posted by middleeye on February 18, 2009 at 12:50pm EST
  • ...as if by posting your picture and blogging with your peers others can really get to know the real you.

    Little boys and girls, facebook is not a social networking site...it is a business commodification site.

    To participate, you not only have to let the site do all of the hard work, but you have to abdicate your rights to your identity. Usage of the site guarantees that they will have all of the latest and greatest data that they can use to commodify you.

    Did you really think there would be a free lunch...er download? You have gleefully and naively participated in your own exploitation.

    They are the pimp and you are become...the HO. But hey, you have the right to object...afterward.

  • Art - references?
  • Posted by curious on February 18, 2009 at 1:15pm EST
  • Hi Art -

    I'd be interested in any references you have to research on social networking sites and this concept of "clogging the drain", alienating students, and students "virtually rejecting" the university.

    I have not read anything like that, but then again I haven't been specifically looking.