[PDLM]

Originally Posted by thromsturmond

But the pictures again are usually different. It might seem like splitting hairs, but you can report on what they said, but not lift and use their pictures. Why? You can rewrite what they posted on their blog, with a "they said on their Facebook account that ...." in your own words. Can't do that with their picture, unless you get down and recreate every pixel.

Are you expressing an opinion on how things should be here, or claiming that this is the law? If so could you cite the relevant bits? That's not what I think the Copyright Ordinance says.

[Claire ex-ax]

Having said that, I think that clause in the Facebook T&Cs is unacceptable - it's one of a number of reasons why I don't have an account there.

Absolutely. Unfortunately I desperately needed to find someone who I knew had a Facebook page. I signed up using a fake name and a free email account (also using a fake name). I just use it for occasional 'trolling'...

People who put up their whole lives on these sites can't expect privacy later. As KIA said:

Try getting them to delete every piece of info they have about you.

Once it's up it will never go away. But it seems that loads of people want their 15 pixels of fame and Facebook provides them with that ... ad infinitum.

[Boris]

Originally Posted by KnowItAll

isnt it a low point for a publication to be using facebook and publishing things like she was unhappy with her job, just for the purpose of creating a story?

You never heard of TMZ ??
They make big bucks in exactly that way with their own "paparazzibook" - Digital Fish and Chip paper and the only difference with facebook is, its DIY.

[KnowItAll]

Boris - I don't think SCMP which tries to paint the picture of being Hong Kong's flag ship newspaper can be compared to TMZ.

Whatever you say, I think SCMP hit a bit of a low point with this piece of investigative journalism. One could almost expect pictures of decapitated corpses on their front page now...

[Crocodile]

When the whole Eliot Spitzer ordeal was published, the girl who was paid buy him for "services" was extensively quoted/researched from her MySpace page.

CNN were running news stories that started with: "Some sources are saying that the girl in question is (insert name here). CNN has not verified this, but her MySpace page...... etc".

IMO, if they run public pictures in the newspaper, as long as they are referencing their source, then it is ok.

[Crocodile]

... And just to show that there is no such thing as "private". ....

'Private' photos made public on Facebook | NEWS.com.au

[nikasp]

I canned Facebook some months ago after reading their terms. That should be very clear when you sign up but I had missed that.