Note: This was originally part of a longer posting from 2010. I’ve had a lot of questions lately about using Facebook more extensively as a marketing tool. It makes sense for a lot of organizations, as long as it’s a) part of a coherent strategy, and b) includes relevant content. But few people are aware of the significant copyright issues surrounding Facebook. That’s why I’m reposting this as a standalone topic. I’ve made minor edits and clarifications. You can see the original posting here.
The Great Facebook Content Catch
Quick quiz: Who owns your Facebook content?
A. You do.
B. You do, but Facebook co-owns it as long as you’re a member.
C. Facebook does, forever and for all time.
D. You do, but Facebook can borrow it as long as it’s on your page, or even after you take it off your page, if someone else has posted it on their page. Effectively, Facebook can use it as long as it’s on a Facebook server.
Most people think that the answer is (A). It’s actually never been (A). For most of Facebook’s history, it was (B). Except for a strange, unsettling period lasting from February ’09 until the spring of 2010, when it was (C). In fact, during the megalomaniacal fever dream that was Policy (C), the company claimed “unending and irrevocable license to use any content uploaded to its service”. (Read more: Concern over new Facebook content rules – Wichita Business Journal)
Scary. Creepy. And with the potential to collect all user-posted content into some giant Wikibook or Faceipedia. (One can only imagine the lengthy entry on uses of the word “dude”, or the photo essays on the topic, “Me and My Friends at a Party.”)
Facebook’s policy is now (D), to wit:
“You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
- For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (“IP content”), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.”
(Read the full statement on Facebook.)
As far as I know, Facebook has not ever used these considerable powers over content, let alone abused them. But the potential for such unlimited (albeit temporary, as long as Policy D is in force) power over content makes me nervous.
This is a big deal, because content is expensive. If your content is created in-house, you may think it’s cheap, or even free, but it is most definitely not. This content, for example, took me a dang long time to write. In my opinion it’s a worthy investment, but it’s still a cost.
Of course, the best way to maximize that investment is to re-use your content. Facebook’s content ownership policy has the potential to diminish or dilute your ability to do just that. How? Here are two hypothetical examples of what Facebook could theoretically do under this policy:
- You have a line of clothing that you market to pre-teen girls. Every week, you liven up your Facebook page with a clever, quotable saying. Eventually you decide to put these sayings on your back-to-school tees. Only Facebook has already loaded them into a highly popular rotating widget and printed them on bumper stickers, none of it tied to your brand. Now you’ll look like you got them from Facebook, not the other way around.
- Your company is the world’s leading expert on dust-repelling heating ducts. To save money and time, you use your Facebook fan page as a blog instead of setting up a real one. You post answers to customers’ FAQs. You and your engineers write about how to achieve smooth installations and why your ducts are the best ducts of all time.
After a while, almost without trying, you have the makings of the kick-ass white paper that you’ve been putting off for years. You have loads of text and pictures to enrich your content-starved website. Only by now, Facebook has launched Faceipedia, and the article under “Dustless Ducts” has all your accumulated wisdom. Nobody needs to go to your branded site, or to download your white paper.
I don’t know that Facebook wants to do any of these things. They probably don’t. But the fact that they might be able to should give you pause about what kind of content you post there.
It would be lovely if Facebook could make you instantly cool, drive millions of new customers to your door, and allow you to eliminate all but a pittance of your marketing budget. But the fact is that it’s pretty much like all marketing tools: valuable for some, highly effective when used with skill to the right target audiences, and no magic bullet.
Twitter is like owning a Tamagotchi. Some people love it. Others find it amusing at first, and then kind of a pain. And that’s the other side of Twitter — if you intend to use it for marketing, you have to keep feeding it, preferably every single dang stupid day. You’re going out to an audience that is not quite as engaged as you might think, so you have to constantly give them something really interesting and fresh.