Who owns content under new Facebook policy?

After Facebook changed its Terms of Use this month,  many bloggers responded Monday in an uproar, concerned that Facebook now has more ownership of users’ content than ever.

Despite a response from Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on Monday afternoon, IU law experts said it appears Facebook has the power to use content in any way it chooses.

The terms of use, which were updated on Feb. 4, removed a few critical lines that previously allowed users to remove content, at which point the license granting Facebook content ownership would expire.

The blogosphere began buzzing after The Consumerist, a blog published by Consumer Reports magazine, published “Facebook’s New Terms of Service: ‘We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Content. Forever,’” on Monday.

The new Terms of Use, without these lines, allows Facebook rights to all user content, names and photos, even after a profile is deleted.

Facebook’s Terms of Use state the site has permission “to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising ... on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof. You represent and warrant that you have all rights and permissions to grant the foregoing licenses.”

But whether or not that is full ownership is up for debate.

Zuckerberg issued a statement Monday by posting on Facebook’s official blog that people still control and own their information.

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

But the statement does not address the lines removed from the terms of use.

Anthony Fargo, associate professor of communications law, said by removing these lines, users still own the information, but now Facebook does, too. Users who post content on the site give Facebook somewhat of a “quasi-ownership,” or more ownership rights of the content, and he said he believes there are some ethical issues.

“When people join Facebook, they don’t read the terms of service,” Fargo said. “I don’t see how the new terms can be applicable without an option for members to pull out content before the agreement changed.”

Fred Cate, IU School of Law professor and director of the Center for Applied
Cybersecurity Research, said this change of terms is just a clarification and isn’t a big surprise, even if there was no prior announcement about the changes.

“It’s common to do this without a big announcement,” Cate said. “This is just clarifying that that’s exactly what Facebook can do.”

Cate said the contract appears to say Facebook can use content for any purpose, including advertising, activities such as publishing a book using any pictures, or even as an introduction if someone is selected for the Supreme Court years from now.

Just because the law allows for a service to change its terms pretty easily, Cate said that doesn’t mean he thinks it’s fair.

“It’s a particular challenge for students,” he said. “It’s known that a large number of future employers check Facebook before they hire people.”

Cate said people who are upset have many opportunities to express their concern.
“People should be upset,” Cate said. “But these days it’s easy for people to organize ways to provoke a response.”

Facebook might have been trying to clarify its terms on ownership, Cate said. Other social networking sites make it clear whether or not the content is owned by the network, Cate said.

MySpace and Twitter, other popular social networking sites, both have terms of service that state they do not claim ownership rights or keep content after an account is deleted.

The idea of the Internet, though, makes anything posted online accessible at any time, and if people do not want information released about them, they should watch what they post online, Cate said.

“This is the Internet,” Cate said. “It’s not a place where you want to put things. Think of the Internet like a postcard; anyone can read it.”