A couple of weeks ago a craze swept Facebook; users participated in what was known as Doppelganger week. If you are lucky enough to look like a celebrity then you probably changed your profile picture to your celebrity counterpart. However, very few people knew that changing their profile picture could be a violation of Facebook’s Terms of Service:
“You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else’s rights or otherwise violates the law…We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement.”
If you weren’t able to snap the photo of the celebrity you look like or acquire the rights to the photo you posted, then you’re in violation of Facebook’s terms of service.
What does this violation mean for your account? Apparently, not much. According to CNET’s email exchange with Brandee Barker, Facebook’s spokesperson:
“Users are responsible for the content they post, but as always, Facebook will respond to requests for removal that it receives from copyright holders. In this case, we have received no such requests.”
So, in the end if you look like George Clooney or Amy Winehouse and decide to post a picture of them as your profile picture, you might be in violation of Facebook’s terms of service, but fortunately, the fad only lasted a week and you’re safe from any consequences.
As an avid user of Facebook–this day-in-age’s productivity killer–now instead of being subjected to my friends’ far-stretched resemblances of celebrities, thanks to Valentine’s Day week this week on Facebook, I’m now subjected to the pathetic public-display-of-affection pictures of my friends with their lovers as a profile picture. Great.
{ 2 } Comments
I feel that people are just making a big deal of this because it is Facebook and because of the huge number of people that have taken part in this. Over the years on social-networking sites people have always posted pictures of celebrities as their own profile pictures. But this has never been made into a big issue.
But now just because a huge group of people have done it together, I feel people are just trying to get back at Facebook.
Besides the last sentence in this post, which is hilarious, Saul makes a good point: people are clearly violating the copyright infringement component of the TOS, but because no cease and desist letters were sent out, no action needed to be taken on the part of Facebook. In other words, despite the TOS violation, Facebook was only going to act if it had too. Imagine the resources that would have to go into monitoring and removing items that violated every aspect of the TOS. Besides the cost in time and money, it would ostensibly dissolve the freedom of expression afforded by Facebook.
In fact, by posting pictures of celebrities as their own profile picture, are users violating the following aspect of the TOS as well?
“You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook…”
Again, as both Saul and Vivek point out, these TOS violations are really a non-issue unless legal liability comes into play.