Literal FaceBook

There’s a bit of a debate going on right now about material taken from personal profiles being used by the press and advertising agencies in, what some people are calling, an act of “digital door-stepping.” So this begs the question: if we post something online, does it mean that anyone can see it and use that content? Or, are there limits about how much we can use that information.

This could be a slippery slope as many of us use images and content from other online sources to fill out our blog posts and provide complete information. If the press is blocked from using our information, then we should also be blocked from using theirs. However, if the press is given a new set of rules (like providing a link back to the source of the content), then it could result in a greater balancing of online information sharing.

Or it could just enrage social media users even more, as it gives the press free reign over their information. Information most people freely make available regardless of who’s reading it.

What’s Mine Is Mine, What’s Yours Is Mine

As I had mentioned a few months back, I believe that if somebody posts something online and makes it available to anyone, then the content is immediately considered public domain and the original content providers have little reason to lash out angrily to those who have otherwise used their material, so long as credit is given when due.

Many of us link to news sites and make comments on our personal sites. Heck, I do it on four sites dozens of times every month (so long as I’m not breaching link policies). It’s how I add a little credibility to some of my better-thought-out arguments. But often times we will go to a news site and see some pictures taken from social networking sites such as MySpace or FaceBook without a link back to the account the picture was taken from. Instead, it would just be a generic mention about where it came from and perhaps a mention about the person in the picture.

While it says in some of the Terms of Service for most social sites (which few people read) that our pictures or information may be used unknowingly by third parties, most of us don’t really think about the true implications of what this means. Heck, I’m sure many of us have seen someone make a link to our site with a comment which has drawn lots of traffic and other comments, only for us to regret our post or consider taking it down. But should it be permitted?

Do The Ends Justify The Means?

I’m looking forward to what the Press Complaints Commission comes up with. Not because I intend to follow their decision, per se, but because it could give people even more reason to really think about what they put online before hitting ’share’. I’m one of those people that believe that if you’re willing to put something online, you’re willing to take the risks involved with sharing such information.

That’s one of the reasons I don’t post ultra-personal photos in my image gallery.

What’s your take on this topic? Should the press have the ability to use content we make freely available in their news reports?