In a time when the protection of privacy is the great unfinished business of Internet, one of the exercises are "forced" is to know who owns our Once we decided to share data in a network. Obviously, there is no unique criterion processing of personal data and content from different social networks, but is becoming one of them that unilaterally determines its own privacy settings, by providing the user a series of tools that will help redefine .
does not mean that the scope for providers of Internet services is absolute. All Internet operators who run their services specifically to English territory, including social networks, are subject to the provisions of English legislation, so that a minimum set of principles must be fulfilled in any case. That is, at least, which provides in Article 4 of LSSI. A different question is the degree of compliance that the authorities require foreign carriers, but that's another debate.
And as conscious and free decisions, among them, choose the / s network / is social / is the / s that we belong, can only be taken from the knowledge, here is some information about treatment that the major social networks operating in Spain are on our data, mainly photographs and content, as advertised on their own terms and conditions.
Let's start with Facebook. In its terms of use, network based in Palo Alto informs you that you "are the owner of all content and the information you post on Facebook. " This would imply that the user is at all times master of its contents, but this is not true. The network itself qualifies later in its terms, for those subject to copyright content such as photos and videos, that "we grant a (...) to use any IP content that you post on Facebook." This license terminates "when you remove your IP content or your account, unless the content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it." That is, your content is yours, but also Facebook, and all other users if they've allowed.
The Twitter microblogging network expressed, on the other hand, in similar terms. Establishing conditions of use "user reserves the rights to any Content submitted, posted or submitted through the service." However, by posting such content, the user "gives the right to Twitter to make available to other companies, organizations or individuals associated with Twitter for syndicating content, dissemination, distribution or publication of such content in other media and services" . I mean, more of the same, or even more.
Tuenti , the English network with more users, provides an important nuance in the license that you grant to the network. And, pray its terms, "to publish content on your profile (...) retain all your rights thereto and TUENTI you grant a limited license to reproduce and transmit them." So far so well, but this authorization, continue their terms, "is the sole and exclusive purpose of that may lend TUENTI service." Moreover, "the previous license shall be resolved once you remove your Content from the Service or give your profile low." That is, sharing a Tuenti content, the user gives the network a license for it be provided the service, but may Tuenti, in general, assign that content to third parties. Youtube
a step further than other social networks, perhaps invited by their very nature. And is that a video on YouTube, you grant a license for it similar to those already exposed, but is also granted the same license for other users "to use, reproduce, distribute, perform works arising out of, display and perform such content as permitted by the functionality of the service. " As a curiosity, note that both licenses are canceled when the user deletes or delete your videos, but not the comments, the assignment is "perpetual and irrevocable."
LinkedIn, the social network designed to share business contacts, acknowledges that "you are the owner of the information you provide on LinkedIn and you can request its removal at any time unless you have shared information and content with others and they do not the removed or has been copied or stored by other users. " Little new in this but you grant a license to LinkedIn to "market through all forms of exploitation now known or discovered in the future any information you provide to LinkedIn."
The Wikipedia , if it can be considered as a social network provides. The user, by sharing content, "agrees to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution / Share-Alike License 3.0 (Unported). For compatibility reasons, you must also licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. (...) Re-users can choose (s) leave (s) they want. " In short, the user sharing content on the Wikipedia loses control over it, but requires the party seeking to reuse a share in the same way.
I said, neither better nor worse. Each network has its own peculiarities, not only as to the benefits they offer to their users but on the treatment which gives the content shared by them. Information is valid only with the election.
Source: Information
0 comments:
Post a Comment