Spread the word.
(Thanks to Rachel and Amadou)
ADDENDUM: Compare to Google's Picasa: "9.4 Other than the limited license set forth in Section 11, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content that you submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Services, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf." (Thanks to snowmoon on consumerist for this.)
Featured Comment by Matt: "As of today they've retracted their new TOS so that they can re-think them."
Mike replies: The old TOS still sucks. As far as I can tell—and I might be wrong—the old TOS said, basically, "We own your stuff as long as you're a member here." The new TOS said, "We own your stuff even if you take it down and even if you cancel your membership."
Featured Comment by Tom Passin: "On the other hand, this is the internet. As Tim Bray pointed out, You can't control where things will go. They get copied, potentially, many times by many people. They get reposted, all kinds of things. You can't stop it.
"Yes, Facebook shouldn't be asserting rights to your content. But you really can't control its spread once it gets on the internet, either."
Featured Comment by Mark Roberts: "Several people have pointed out that it's easy for anyone to appropriate your images once they're on the web. This misses the point. If a high school student in Nebraska uses your photo on his web page, you may be annoyed but you haven't lost any of your rights or any money. If Coca Cola used your image in an ad without paying you could sue and get money—and unlike the high school student, they have enough money to make it worth your while. What Facebook's TOS does if give them the rights as well as the image: They can use your image in an ad and, even though they have enough money to be worth suing, you can't do so. Depending on the terms in the TOS, Facebook might even be able to sell your image to Coca Cola for an ad.
"Finally, it's worth noting that the TOS applies to all media. Although photographers seem to be the ones getting most upset, it may be musicians who have the most to lose. Imagine some band that becomes the next U2 or Coldplay. They get a recording contract and have a big hit...with a song that has also been on the Facebook page they started when no one had heard of them. The amount of money at stake there would make all our photographs' value look like pocket change by comparison.
"Facebook actively promotes itself to bands, offering 'unlimited uploads' of music. Given the growth of social media, it's not impossible that one of these bands could someday make it big."
Featured Comment by Joe Decker: "Tom Passin said: 'But you really can't control its spread once it gets on the internet, either.'
"I dunno. I found a one of my images being used as a CD cover (and on the internet as the album cover) at one point, I found it very easy to control that. I sent them a bill, and then, when I didn't get an answer (after two weeks of attempting contact with both the band and the record company), I sent a DMCA takedown notice to one of the sites hosting that album cover—a certain Amazon.com.
"Within an hour, I had payment.
"(I've had to resort to DMCA [the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 —Ed.] a couple times before, and I don't like many things about that law, but there are moments where it's a small photographer's best friend.)"