[Frameworks] Facebook

[Jim Flannery]

Monday, June 13, 2011, 10:35:36 AM, Chuck Kleinhans wrote:

> On Jun 13, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Adam Hyman wrote:

>> It makes sense. Without this phrase, people could post something on
>> Facebook, and then they (or someone else in the photo, for example)
>> could sue Facebook for posting the image. It doesn’t give Facebook
>> ownership of the image.

> Wait a minute.  It does give them the right to use it as they see fit
> endlessly and for profit and for purposes you mgiht not agree with. 
> And is the '"evocable license" for both parties?  or just for them?

Yes. Note I said "rights", not "ownership". This is not an insignificant
distinction *in a contract*. In uploading a video, photo, etc., to
Facebook, you grant them the *right* to re-use it, not only for whatever
*you* want, but for whatever *they* want. You delete the photo? It's
still there. You delete your account? It's still there. Somebody at the
third cubicle from the left thinks up a new way to monetize those images
on some other aggregator site? No problem. Sure, it's a non-exclusive
right -- at least you don't have to pay them to screen the work
elsewhere yourself -- but the right to *withdraw* a work is one we can
all think of examples filmmakers having used in the past.

But what the heck, at least *somebody* will make some money.

Any other rights you'd like to give up because they can take them away
anyway? It's late afternoon in America, you'll get the chance soon
enough. And someone will make money.

-- 
 Jim Flannery
 jim at newgrangemedia.com