[ajays]

Question: why isn't my data's copyright owned by me? I should have the same rights over my data (my searches, my browsing history, relationships, etc.) as an artist has over his creations. And they (companies that use this information or trade in it) should have to pay me to use it.

[_delirium]

Anything (sufficiently creative) you create is automatically copyrighted by you, but according to Facebook's terms of service,

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

Though it's an interesting point; the Facebook ToS are a pretty weak way of effecting a copyright license, even worse than a click-through EULA.

I'm guessing they wouldn't be dumb enough to do so, but it'd be interesting if they tried to exploit that license grant to its maximum potential. For example, a number of musicians, and even major labels, post music videos on Facebook. If we take the terms at face value, that means Facebook gains a transferable license to use that music video, worldwide and royalty-free. So they could, for example, sublicense the video to be used in a Levi's television advertisement, without the original artist being paid--- if this license really does what it claims to do.

[harshreality]

I doubt that even the complete record of your online activities would be found by a court to be copyrightable. While it might represent a lot of effort, the fact that the record exists is ancillary to the reason you keep adding to that record. The fact that you don't have access to most of what facebook collects about you puts a snag in the argument that you're doing it for creative purposes.

Copyright for databases or collections of data is variable, depending on the legal framework where you live.

In the EU, there is some protection but it requires either creativity going into the compilation, or the work done to create the compilation must exceed a certain threshold:

  http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Intellectual_Property_Rights/SEM2M2M26WD_0.html
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_Directive

In the U.S., there is no protection for a compilation of data just because you put work into the compilation:

  http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feist.html

In any case, the basic pieces of information about you are not copyrightable, even in the EU. They have adopted privacy laws to deal with personal data.

There's been some discussion on HN about copyright of public transit schedules, I believe in Australia and/or India.

[lambdapilgrim]

Not to sound pedantic, but in this case the "user" data wouldn't have existed without the product, so it's not exactly like an artist's work. It's not surprising it is a challenge to find a traditional parallel for the new complexities of this century.

[joering1]

they do just not in a monetary form, but by letting you use their services for free. it cost more to run, for example Facebook site, than $1.

[jersni]

that's true. but then again, how much would their service be worth without the user's generated content?

[joesb]

How much would their service be worth to you without other user's generated content? If it's more important to you to see other people's content than you putting out your content, then you should be the one paying them to access other's content.