Business - Written by Thusenth Dhavaloganathan on Friday, November 9, 2007 12:05 - 1 Comment
Facebook’s new ad platform possibly illegal
Well, it could be illegal in New York and California states at least. The best part about the law is that it isn’t one that’s been developed regarding online privacy, or even with the internet in mind – it was actually created around 100 years ago.
New York’s well-known statute creates both a misdemeanour and a civil cause of action for “any person whose name, portrait, picture, or voice is used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first obtained.”
As expected, the new ad platform has raised an onslaught of privacy objections, not unlike the ones raised when Facebook revealed the news feed feature. But unlike the news feed feature, this move by Facebook has profit motives behind it and will obviously be only beneficial to Facebook and its advertisers.
…users are only asked in general if they want to share information, not if they want their name and picture to be featured in an ad for some product.
The information made available to advertisers may not be personally identifiable but privacy laws treat information that can possibly be used in advertising distincitively different from regular privacy information. One of four common-law privacy torts does not allow appropriation.
“One who appropriates to his own use or benefit the name of likeness of another is subject to liability to the other for an invasion of his privacy.”
As William McGeveran noted on his blog, “I don’t see how broad general consent to share one’s information translates into the specific written consent necessary for advertisers to use one’s name (and often picture) under this law.” The platform is going to be challenged and is looking a lot like a paradigm shift in advertising. The outcome of all of these challenges will create precedence for similar platforms to emerge.
Much like Google’s OpenSocial, what if marketing networks like Federated Media were to handle the monetization of all other remaining social networks – if Facebook can exploit its users, it’s only fair (and good business sense) for the others join in too.
1 Comment
Karen M
Coming soon in paperback! Help rename the paperback version of Macrowikinomics and win a one-hour webinar for you and your colleagues with Don Tapscott. Ends 5:00pm ET, August 31. Learn more.
Business - Oct 5, 2010 12:00 - 0 Comments
DRM and us
More In Business
- Facebook, Facebook, Facebook
- Survey: How are you using Facebook, Twitter, smart phones, and other technology platforms?
- Will Facebook be your CRM provider?
- Wiki Banking
- The importance of being competent
Entertainment - Aug 3, 2010 13:14 - 2 Comments
Want to see the future? Look to the games
More In Entertainment
- Lessons in collaboration from B.B. King’s
- CL!CK – LEGO’s fun social product development platform
- Peer Pressure 2.0: Farmville
- Online gaming more than just fun
- The NFL – The most protective league, attempting to control the uncontrollable
Society - Aug 6, 2010 8:19 - 4 Comments
The Empire strikes a light
More In Society
- Balance: customer receptivity vs. customer revulsion
- The Net Gen: Too plugged-in for parenting?
- Are you addicted to social media?
- The privacy discussion we need to have
- “The Data-Driven Life”: Who’s not interested in discovery?
I am indeed grateful to hear about this law.
What many also bring up with this topic is the changes of Terms of Service and how many of these websites state in their agreements that one agrees automatically to any changes of service by agreeing to the terms.
BUT… If I remember correctly – One party is unable to Unilaterally change the terms of a contract or service agreement without first obtaining the other parties consent before doing so.
How would anyone know when to check a website so that they are aware of any changes have been implemented? and if they don’t agree with them, then what? Are they now able to Remove their information? are they able to leave that site as clean and clear as the day they went to it?
I know for a Personal fact that is not always the case. Yes, indeed, I am grateful of hearing about this law. There is a commercial site in NY, that is holding my Name and all of my comments hostage. I have NO access to any of MY information, (I am unable to View or respond to the Majority of my comments and data); Which also means that there is no ability to respond to disparaging comments regarding my professional identity. I have NO access to my forum Members. Most importantly my name is being used without my permission.
I asked them to remove, and they stated it was an inconvenience to them, but that they would be willing to “edit” several of my 8 years of posts for me, quoting their current TSA. What gives? They even are willing to EDIT my posts for me?
When I joined the network, the terms of Service was indeed not the same as it is today.. I was not aware of any changes to the TSA, was not alerted, and the only time that I became aware of the damaging consequences was after the damages were in effect.
What is really of interest is that The TSA also states that an individual is allowed to disable their account at anytime.. but, unfortunately I am not allowed the same privilege.. so, what gives??
And today, they say that they have Non Exclusive Rights to my material, Yet then say they have full exclusive rights.. Quite Ambiguous No????
Sometimes these laws may seem unfair to some, but, there are many TSA’s that also attempt take away the rights of the original authors, or the individuals who want to be able to control not only their Content, but their Name as well. Should we not have that right?
Most individuals don’t realize the extent or even the problems that can occur when we randomly say Yes, I accept these agreements.
Oh, and many think we can just sue, well, if one can find an attorney who is wiling to do it, it can cost a pretty penny!
Karen M