Why My Kids Won’t Have a Facebook, Twitter, Google+, or Pinterest Account When They Turn 13
I didn’t get my driver’s license the day I turned 16. My parents made me wait until later in the summer when I had logged more hours of practice on highways and they were more certain that I was capable of making intelligent, split-second decisions before they placed me behind the wheel of a two ton instrument of death. Okay, so cars aren’t actually used in that manner — they aren’t a weapon built to mow down unsuspecting people — but they can be used in that manner by the very nature of their defining characteristics. They are heavy, they are powerful, they are controlled by people. Was I cranky at 16? Of course. But now I understand why my parents made me wait (and am sort of grateful that they did).
I hope the twins equally understand why I probably won’t allow them to start various social media accounts when they turn 13.
We’ve been allowing them to practice drive on the Internet on sites with user-friendly terms of service (TOS). We’ve had a few social media fender benders — learning incidents about what not to upload, as it were — so we’re lucky that we chose sites wisely for their first forays into online communication. It was pretty low stakes, and we were able to undo the problematic postings. The same won’t be true when they get to the biggies: Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest (let’s call them FTGP for this post, pronounced fit-gip).
Just as cars aren’t actually weapons but have the potential to become a lethal object, FTGP are not image license sellers in the same transparent vein as Getty Images, but they have the potential to become an image license seller with their TOS. Am I making you gulp? Good. Then read on because I think TOS and release forms are so important to understand and read before you create an account or sign them. And most people I know start accounts or sign forms without reading them and understanding them completely.
Get that? You’re in the majority if you create an account without reading the TOS first. I am in the minority with my extreme anal-retentiveness. This post is not about judging; it’s about arming you with information so you can make good decisions on current or future social media sites (and frankly, this information is applicable to the release forms you often sign with activities and events).
Let’s start with some keywords that we always want to notice in regards to a contract when it comes to images:
- transferable (meaning, they can give someone else the same rights they have to your photo*)
- sub-licensable (meaning, they can license your image to a third-party vendor and collect a fee)
- royalty free (meaning, that money they could get for sub-licensing will not be passed along to you)
- worldwide (meaning, this is as broad as you can get)
- adapt (they’re allowed to change your content)
- modify (they can really really change your content)
- perpetual (the contract is self-renewing)
- irrevocable (you can’t end the agreement)
Those are all the words I scan for immediately, and if they appear, that’s my cue to proceed with caution. Which doesn’t mean that I don’t use the site. I just proceed with caution. I have an account with most social media sites.
So which of the Facebook, Twitter, Google+, or Pinterest TOS contain some of those key trigger words? The answer: all of them**.
- Facebook: 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).
- Twitter: By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).
- Google+: When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. (This new wording is a step up from their old wording: “You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services.” But I have to be frank, even if the wording has changed, the idea is still there.)
- Pinterest: you grant us a non-exclusive, royalty-free, transferable, sublicensable, worldwide license to use, display, reproduce, re-pin, modify (e.g., re-format), re-arrange, and distribute your User Content on Pinterest for the purposes of operating and providing the Service(s) to you and to our other Users.
(Side note: the TOS are obviously much longer than this and contain a lot of other information. I’ve pulled out these sections to explain what rights you grant the site when you create an account.)
Do I truly fear that FTGP is going to sell my image to a third-party vendor, and then the license for that photo will be purchased by an online magazine to use as the visual in an article titled “Ten Kinds of Women You Want to Avoid?” No. I think it’s a very remote possibility. But do I believe that FTGP gave themselves the ability to do just that if I post my pictures to their site, well, yes, that is clearly part of the contract. And that raises my red flag because unless that possibility is something they foresee doing in the future, there is no reason to include it in a terms of service.
My philosophy is that if someone tells me they might do something in the future, believe them.***
Of course, even if you choose not to participate in the medium, it doesn’t mean you’re actually protected. For instance, if I am on Facebook and I take a picture of you this summer and upload it on Facebook, I have just given Facebook the right to sub-license this picture of you. That picture could be sold to a third party vendor and used in an advertisement. So it’s of you, but someone else owns the picture because they took it, and they uploaded it to Facebook and set this chain of events in motion.
And THAT is exactly what I think of when I talk about uploading pictures of my children online. I realized in reading reactions to those posts that we’re all working with different information, and I am focusing solely on those TOS and what they mean in the largest sense of the word. In that last paragraph, it was between me and you, me making a choice for you and you being cranky with that choice. Which is why I don’t place the twins in that position, making a choice for them that cannot be undone (remember the words perpetual and irrevocable).
I don’t post ANY pictures without asking the subject in the picture if they are okay having their picture uploaded to my blog or another site. When I ask an adult, I expect them to be able to make a sound decision thinking through the possible consequences of having their image out there. But I can’t ask a child and receive an answer that takes into account the possible consequences. I can only get an answer that boils down to likey/no likey. So I personally err on the side of posting nothing because they can always make the choice in the future to post something.
Which goes back to that age 13 threshold — I just don’t think most 13-year-olds can comprehend what I wrote above and understand how far-reaching small decisions can be. Once I think they truly understand it (and aren’t just reciting it by rote), I’ll let them have an account on a social media site that has broad TOS. Until then, they need to stick to sites that don’t use this sort of language in their TOS because there are sites that do a lot to protect their younger users, proceeding with the knowledge that kids don’t always make the best decisions.****
So why do I believe that sites put this language into their contracts even if utilizing it is a long shot? My guess is that because all of these sites are businesses who need to turn a profit in order to keep the people who run it employeed. Just as brick-and-mortar businesses have assets such as tangible property, YOU and your content are the assets of FTGP. Social media websites need more avenues for collecting revenue beyond advertising, and I actually support being used in a bunch of ways. Facebook gives me an online space to socialize for free, so I don’t mind if they include me as a number in an information roundup that they sell to big business. I consider it my payment for using the site. But while I don’t mind non-identifying information to be used to help soda companies market their products to me, I do mind my images being possibly sub-licensed. So I don’t upload them.
See, simple solution.
You may have read this post and still come to the same conclusion that you are perfectly comfortable posting your images on these sites, and I fully support that. We all have different comfort zones, and I know that I am on the far end of the spectrum. I always liken it to emergency room doctors who won’t allow their child to skateboard. We both know the skateboarding casualty statistics but where I feel comfortable accepting the risk, that doctor does not because he has seen the damage firsthand. And perhaps as a social media editor, I have seen the damage firsthand from people who have had their image sub-licensed and were upset with the results and while the risk is the same for you and for me, I make a different decision based on my experience.
And just as that emergency room doctor deeply respects my parenting choices to allow skateboarding, I deeply respect your decision to upload your image or your child’s image online. It really needs to be a case of to each their own, with everyone being mindful of their own comfort zone.
The point of this post is not to make you scared, but to make you knowledgeable. To turn you into a TOS ninja and make you social media savvy. Now go kick ass.
And actually, show of hands: how many people learned something new from this post and what was it? I ask this because I may do a mind-dump of all sorts of other things like this that I use to make my decisions if this is enlightening as opposed to annoying.
* Of course, they have no rights if you don’t use their site. But once you use their site, you are agreeing to their conditions. Let’s put it this way, nothing in this world is free even if sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google+, or Pinterest look like it on the surface. They need to make money, and that money needs to come from something more than just advertisers. Remember, you — the user — and your content become an asset.
** Anything you put out there can be taken and utilized in a way you don’t like. But this is about giving permission to use any image you upload. When you agree to the terms of service and build your account (or keep your account open after the TOS changes), you give these rights to the site.
*** I recently had two experiences with photo releases. The first place allowed me to remove that clause from their contract so I signed it. The second place wouldn’t allow me to remove that clause so I didn’t sign it because I had to question why that clause was important enough to them that they would rather lose my business than change it.
**** I was really pleased, for instance, to see that Pottermore does not allow kids to choose their user name therefore ensuring that kids don’t use their real, full name online. Then again, they lost points from me when they told kids to enter their birthdate.
Photo Credit: Slosada via Flickr.
33 comments
I pretty much knew all of this stuff, but you put it in clear concise terms better than anyone I know.
No one has make me think about this issue (pictures of kids on the internet) more than you, and I really appreciate it. I post pictures of my kids once in a while to my blog and Facebook, but I never show their faces. (The pictures are from the back.)
And even though I’ve thought this was fine, after reading this post, I’m thinking of bagging even that practice.
As far as social networking sites for kids– my own children (10, almost 8, and 4) were not allowed even on computers until very recently, and I rarely let them do anything on the internet. My plan is not to let them have social networking accounts until late high school, if that. However, I have a relative who was the only kid among her friends without a FB account. (She was a sophomore in high school.) She then got one in secret, and had it for months before her parents found out.
I learned a lot. And to be totally honest, I’m not a doctor, but if the ER doc won’t let her kids skateboard, I’m leery of it too. My kids are klutzes, after all. I have put a few pictures of my kids on FB, and a couple on my blog, but I will definitely take your words under advisement. Because I consider you an expert, and if it makes you leery, then it makes me leery too.
My hand is raised! I never thought about someone else owning the rights to a photo that I happen to be in and what happens when I post it online. I’d like to think I’m an intelligent, common sense person, but that never dawned on me! This whole Warrior Eli thing has certainly taught me that if I’m ever blessed with kids, I will be rather Mel like when it comes to posting their photos. So thank you.
I’m with Anjali on this. I basically knew all this stuff, but you’ve put it clearly and concisely.
Since my kid is on the way, I still have time to think about how and what I’ll put about him on the net or not. Lately, I’ve been thinking I’ll just keeping using the name Paxlet when I talk about him instead of the name we will eventually give him. And pictures…that’s still in the thought process.
I knew that all content became theirs, but I didn’t realize that they also could make any alterations they want and use it in any way that they want. I have only ever posted one profile picture and very rarely make any comments on FB (mostly just keep track of friends and read their comments), but this certainly makes me think about what my friends and relatives are doing when they posted all of those pictures of thenselves and their children (especially those that are meant to be funny and are downright unflattering!). Thank you for all of the info!
Thanks for the sobering reminder, Mel. I remember a blog post circulating a few years back by a woman who was shocked to learn — from a friend who just happened to be living in the Czech Republic — that her family’s photo was being used on a billboard ad there!! She had used it as her profile picture on FB. That incident alone probably delayed me from going on Facebook for another year. I do post photos there, but I am careful about posting photos of other people’s kids if there is any doubt in my mind that they would object.
So, hmmm, the privacy settings are essentially meaningless, then? If I choose that only my friends can see my photos, that I’m not searchable, etc…I wonder if I would have a lawsuit if my images were sold. Because the privacy settings imply…well, privacy.
My niece and nephew got accounts when they were 13 – I’m not sure how I’ll feel about it in 7.5 years.
So guilty of not reading TOS correctly. I’d already made the decision not to post pictures of E. on my f/b account (which is the only social media site to which I belong), but am now thinking I’ll just get rid of all of my photos, full stop, and no longer put more up there.
Thanks for this post. Very enlightening and thought-provoking.
Yes, I learned a ton, this was very helpful. I always assumed the TOS just said “don’t do anything illegal” and were about making sure that *I* wasn’t plagiarizing or using copyrighted material and claiming it as my own.
I have a question, though, – what about Blogger and WordPress? I see people putting copyright statements, like yours at the bottom of this page, and I don’t really understand how that works. Do you HAVE to have that on there, or is it implied in some way? I’ve always wondered how Blogger works – what do they get out of it? Do they have any rights to the stuff I put on there? I guess I could go read the TOS myself but do you know off the top of your head?
I have a friend that is a professional photographer who just learned the hard way that her pictures that she posted to Facebook no longer belong to her. A local hotel took her photos and used them in their advertising brochures and didn’t give her credit, ask her permission or pay her. She is now heavily watermarking all her photos that she posts to Facebook. She didn’t want to stop posting since it is a great source of advertising for her own business, but she needs to protect her images and that is the only way she found to do it.
A good friend once told me that she was very glad to have gone through all of her adolescent & post-adolescent self-actualization before MySpace & Facebook. And, thinking of my own high school diary entries, I am with her all the way on that. My fears aren’t so much about photo content but about how I’d rather Dot not learn to regret making private thoughts public. I’m still not sure how to tackle that, but I know that in addition to the talks about sex we’ll be having, there will also be talks about personal thoughts & info on the Internet.
I learned something–another reason why I am really glad I *dont* have an account on any of those sites. I used to try to read all contracts before moving forward, but I eventually gave up, because they made my head spin. So now I am planning to go and look at a few of them. And decide how to continue using those sites.
Thanks for posting this, Mel. I actually only knew on Facebook, but this really helps shape an already strong opinion I have about privacy and social media. I am like you and keep pictures to a minimum. I even worry about our rainbow baby’s birth being documented (not by us) on those places by enthusiastic family members. Its such a different landscape than we knew as children. I think that most people will wish that they had adopted some understanding in hindsight. A great post, Mel!
I think there are a lot of 20-somethings who don’t even get this, and they should. I’ve heard that companies gather all the info you put on FB to use for background checks. It was all good when FB was used only by college kids, but now that it’s been opened up to everyone and their grandmother, I’ve been a lot more hesitant about what I post. I’m not 100% comfortable posting pics of my LO and have insisted that only myself and the hubby be the ones to do so. Partly because of what you wrote about above, and partly because I don’t know everyone my friends are friends with.
As someone who works on consumer websites for a living, I wanted to chime in.
The language Mel quoted does give the site broad permission to do stuff with the content you add to the site, *but* the reason it’s there is that it has to be there for them to deliver the service. If you upload a photo, they need to be able to store it, move it to a different server, store a backup, display it on the webpage for you and anyone you share it with, change the size so you can use it as a thumbnail, etc. The lawyers who draft the terms of use require that language to be there. Sometimes, there will be language elsewhere in the TOS that clarifies why the company needs those permissions.
So yes, those companies could legally do other stuff with the images, but none of the top-tier sites are putting that language in to allow them to do that. The language is there to allow them to run their service legally. And those sites are not the ones you need to worry about mis-using your images. It’s far more likely a user of the site will grab your image and do something with it (per the Czech billboard example mentioned above).
I’m a big privacy nut, so I’m careful about what I do with my images, and where I put them, but it’s not the TOS of the big sites that worry me.
“how many people learned something new from this post and what was it? … (is this) enlightening as opposed to annoying (?)”
Hand raised. Enlightening, not even remotely annoying.
I had more than an inkling about all of this … but I could never articulate it the way that you do. And I appreciate that more than I can say. Not only does it help me to clarify my own thoughts and position … it helps me to figure out how to explain it to my own kids. Also, as someone who has had images of my kids and myself loaded up to FB without my consent … being able to point others to your knowledgeable, articulate explanation of this is infinitely helpful. Because I’m sure if I made a stink about not liking what people do on FB with images that impact me, there would be more eye-rolling than support for my reaction. We can point to your post and people may still refuse to get it (fine). But I was so psyched that you wrote this, Mel. Someone needs to keep trying to light up this blind alley for everyone who comes along after us. It’s a worthy effort. Here’s to clarity. (clink) (fist bump)
Anything that helps us to understand what we don’t understand is nothin’ but a good thing. Everyone doesn’t have to agree with us in the end … and I, for one, don’t need to convert them. But I do need them to respect my space on this. I couldn’t agree more that there needs to be a judgement-free zone around the choices people make re: social media — what is and is not right ~for them~. This is an even more @**-kicking point than merely 😉 increasing knowledge/clarity.
Back when FB first changed it’s TOS … someone posted something to the effect of … (I so wish I could put my finger on it because I can’t do the wording justice) … picture a cannible cartoon where the dumb guy in the pot thinks he’s a dinner ~guest~ … If you don’t have a seat at the table (in terms of decision-making about your content), you are not a GUEST, you are the MEAL. Ding Ding! Give that person a gold star! Touche. TOO-SHAY.
I truly value the information you’ve provided here & not in the least annoying. I like to base my decisions on the most info possible so knowing more about TOS has really made me think deeper about my use of social media sites.
This reminds me; two summers ago, I met up with one of my best friends from childhood, who has two adopted children (teenagers). I had just recently joined Facebook & asked if she was on. She said no, & she did not want her kids on there either until they were 18. Her son’s adoption was closed, I believe, but she knows his biological family lived in the area & was afraid they would try to contact him there. She said he could do whatever he wanted after he turned 18, & I believe he is 18 now, so I’m wondering…
Your voice has been stirring in my head since you posted about the breastfeeding 4 year old on T.ime.
Would my daughter approved of such a photo down the line???
I never considered this before.
And then ironically, chaos started to unravel with my birthfamily and a nutjob associated with them. Nutjob saw my daughter’s photo.
On FB.
I was immediately stricken with fear. I deleted the account that had her on it ( I had it for the birthfamily), and have since been trying to privatize more on my blog.
This post, and the one the other day, completely changed my thinking on posting her.
As a teacher, I tell my kids that it is illegal for them to have an FB account if they are under 13, which most of them are. We have the police come in and talk about that too. Cyber bulleying, befriending mere strangers…you know how it goes.
And let me tell you, if FB and such and such, is still around once my little chicklet hits that age, I doubt that I will allow her to join.
“Permission To Publish”, something I ask my student’s parents all of the time….and yet I had completely overlooked it myself.
Lesson learned.
I learned a lot, so thank you. I used to try to read all the TOS’s, but they didn’t make sense to me so I stopped. Lazy on my part. Thank you for this post. Makes me much more aware of how to protect myself & my kids. I try to be very careful with whom I’m friends with, who I’ll let see what, etc. But some days I just want to run back to rural Africa and raise my family where I grew up. No phones, no internet, no electricity, etc. A simpler life. Not necessarily better, but it was certainly a much more focused existence, and much less complicated in terms of technology. And I miss that.
I learned some things from what you have posted and I appreciate your doing so; I also agree that we should all have the opportunity to make informed choices. We don’t own any I-anything except an ancient music playing Ipod not least because I don’t want my 5 year old (who knows what they are and how they work) regularly playing games on them — or having to tell him no all the time. So we just don’t own them. The point being, I’m not an enthusiastic embracer of technology…
I haven’t put any thought into what I’ll do when he’s 13 because, honestly, I think the systems will be different enough then that saying now that “I won’t let him have a Facebook account” would be like saying, “No way is MY kid going to ride a penny farthing — I’ve seen what those crazy bicycles can do” (of course, Wolvog and Chickienob are somewhat older, making the comparison less relevant). (Having raised stepchildren, I can tell you he will ABSOLUTELY have a credit card and be supervised in learning how to use it before he departs for college. He’ll also know how to call a cab if he needs to get a ride somewhere … something this small-town girl didn’t learn growing up and considers a valuable life skill, right up there with sewing on a button or making an omelette. But I digress.)
Mostly because I am utterly perplexed at the thought that I could keep my kid’s (e.g.) photo off Facebook. I mean, sure, if I kept him locked in the house and avoided extended family. But otherwise, how is this possible? I can’t see any way to do it, I really can’t.
Kate, I grew up in rural Peru – I want to meet you!
Good for you! I didn’t get my license for a few months, either, after I turned 16. My mom kept telling me that putting me behind the wheel of a car is like handing me a loaded gun. (Plus, she was a high school teacher, so she saw lots of immature folks driving too-fast cars.)
I applaud your not wanting your children in social media too soon. I teach 5th grade, and I am shocked at the number of my own students who send me Facebook requests. More parents should take an interest in what their kids are actually doing. Thanks for being one of those parents.
Oops. That means I probably shouldn’t have posted this family portrait to Facebook.
http://www.womanaroundtown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/addams_family1.jpg
Thanks for the info mel. As always making me think.
I am guilty of not reading TOS before hitting ‘accept’, but was more or less aware of all this because of blogs and other websites DH and I are following that DO read TOS and tell us what it can mean to the users. We’ve often discussed, after another FB privacy update, or a new G.oogle TOS, that we needed to get rid off our FB and g.mail accounts, but for now we still use them, mainly because there is no real alternative. Living far away from family and friends, we use FB a lot to keep people updated without having to send out emails with photos etc. I did start a private blog after the birth of our first son, but it didn’t work (mainly because I blogged there the way I do on my anonymous blog, talking about things that keep me awake at night, but the family just wanted cute stories and pix of the baby). Even though I know that these companies can become really ‘evil’ (to quote the g.oogle people) and mess with my information, on a daily basis I do not worry too much about it. We do post images on FB, but never compromising or unflattering ones. But post like yours are always good to reflect on these things again (and maybe make changes, or not…)!
I have another question about all of this (I have been thinking loads about this post- thank you, Mel!)- does the Google+ TOS apply to Picasa as well? I use Picasa all the time to post pictures of E. because we have no family in the city and his paternal relatives are all overseas. I felt it was more secure than facebook, because I keep track of the people to whom the emails are sent with the links to the albums. But now I’m wondering if the same TOS are in there.
Does anyone know if there is an online photo-sharing site that doesn’t hold within its TOS the ability to one day take your photos and sell them for someone else’s use? I can’t see not posting photos of E. online because of our family situation.
Brave new world indeed. I sometimes feel that navigating the online world (and the world of cellphones/smartphones) will be the most challenging thing we do as parents because there is absolutely no precedent from previous generations.
Sorry to jump back into this, but I have to point out that the Facebook terms of use include a very important phrase immediately before the section Mel quoted – here’s the full paragraph.
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.
—
Note the ‘subject to your privacy and application settings’. This is consistent with my earlier post, that the reason Facebook requires these permissions is to deliver the Facebook service.
I don’t disagree that there are bad actors out there, but these big sites are not the sites I worry about.
Hand raised. I learned a lot. Thanks for breaking down the TOS and for pointing out the keywords.
You are so right about the analogy of a car and a social media account. Both can be used as tools, but both can cause a lot of damage if not used properly and intelligently.
Thanks for making us more intelligent in these areas.
LOL, Josh.
Hey, today’s WEDNESDAY!
Thank you Mel and Brave IVF Girl for this information and your perspectives on it. Gives me a lot to chew on.
It was enlightening! Please do more posts like this :-).
Now a days when kids hit high school the only way information for clubs and sports gets out is on fb. My parents did not allow me to have a fb until I was 16 and I missed multiple captains practices and many community events sponsered by clubs I am in. I feel as long as kids are aware of where there posts go and that what people put on social networking is not true they should be able to have an account. Parents should also have a responsibility in checking on what kids post.