“That’s a really interesting way to look at it David. Hadn’t thought about that aspect of it. The article also mentions that this could be an example of POOR legal writing rather than a subversive attempt to make money, so there may never be an issue to pursue here. But it does feel underhanded to me, and since it’s out in the open, you’d think it would be in FB’s best interest to clarify it. Heck, here we are talking about it on their site…”

“Danny - This is very interesting. Very. Let me toss something in the air and see if it falls or flies. You see, what if you uploaded an image whose rights were already owned by someone else? For example, if a model uploaded a photograph of herself but the rights to that photograph were still owned by the photographer. Her actions wouldn’t strip the ownership rights away from the photographer, right? I can only agree to “give away” what is mine. This is seems to be a grey area.

Also, I talked with some attorneys about this very thing (it was at a coctail party, but it was pretty intense none-the-less). Their opinion was that this is a MASSIVE lawsuit waiting to happen. This treads into an area of law that no one has really tested. It touches on the definition of “celebrity.”

If my image or likeness has a value that I was not aware I was giving away, then the “agreement” that I “signed” by becoming a member can be challenged. At least that’s how I understood it.

Interesting stuff.”