I would seriously hope that HackerNews possesses a deeper sense of business knowledge than what has been demonstrated in the parent comment.
A trademark is not a copyright. It is not "claiming ownership". It doesn't mean that you have to pay facebook royalties every time you utter shock at how ugly you are when you look in the mirror.
A trademark is a brand, and because of all the things that come with a recognized brand, it is imperative that a business be allowed to operate without every two bit imitator confusing customers by making (possibly inferior) products that look and feel like an authentic experience.
My only wish is that the outraged do some reading.
They aren't restricting the use of the work "face", they are claiming ownership of the exact way that particular brand is represented, hence the image.
facebook are asserting a right to prevent other people using the word "face" in particular ways.
In comparison, copyright is a right to prevent other people using particular words, pictures, sounds, etc, in particular ways. If copyright is "ownership" then so are trademarks too. Furthermore, trademarks can be bought and sold, another indication that they are a form of property.
So, yes, it isn't too much of a stretch to say that facebook are claiming a (limited) form of ownership over the word "face".
Trademark is saying that a particular look, feel, phrase or whatnot normally represents the company or organization and as such it is owned by the company as an identity. It's the exact same thing as your personal signature, which I'm sure you have a vested interest in.
Copyright is a creation of something new, (or the idea of the intent to create something) that says you aren't allowed to use it period unless you ask for the creator's permission, since it isn't yours. This include copying it exactly.
Incidentally, protecting trademarks is a social program for business. Proponents of smaller government and libertarian ideals seem not to want the government to get out of the trademark business.
A trademark is not a copyright. It is not "claiming ownership". It doesn't mean that you have to pay facebook royalties every time you utter shock at how ugly you are when you look in the mirror.
A trademark is a brand, and because of all the things that come with a recognized brand, it is imperative that a business be allowed to operate without every two bit imitator confusing customers by making (possibly inferior) products that look and feel like an authentic experience.
My only wish is that the outraged do some reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
They aren't restricting the use of the work "face", they are claiming ownership of the exact way that particular brand is represented, hence the image.