• Welcome to Camera Craniums: The Photography Community for Enthusiasts.
 
Members
Stats
  • Total Posts: 62,411
  • Total Topics: 5,704
  • Online today: 297
  • Online ever: 856 (January 21, 2020, 09:07:00 AM)
Users Online
  • Users: 0
  • Guests: 225
  • Total: 225
aliexpress
Amazon Spring Deal: SanDi...🌸🌼 Get Ready to Blossom w...Marantz Professional MPM-...Google Pixel 7a and Pixel...JasmineSanDisk Ultra 64GB USB Fl...SanDisk 512GB Extreme PRO...GiaDo You Shoot Photos With ...Which eye do you use with...SanDisk 256GB Extreme PRO...Duracell Plus Alkaline 1....RØDE VideoMicro Compact O...I must be one of the rare...Learning ResourcesPhotography and Time of D...

Facebook and copyright.

Started by Reinardina, June 10, 2012, 06:59:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Reinardina

I don't use Facebook, so it does not concern me, but I know a lot of people have pictures on that site, and I wonder if they know the following:

"but did you know that once you have uploaded pictures, Facebook owns your copyright?"

(Trend Micro advertisement in The Daily Telegraph of 9 June 2012)

__________________
Reinardina.

Beauty is bought by judgment of the eye.
Shakespeare. (Love's Labours Lost.)

Beaux Reflets

Do you have a link to the article Reinardina ?
:beer: Andy

"Light anchors things in place and gives perspective meaning."

The choices we make are rooted in reflection.

http://beauxreflets.blogspot.com/

jinky

Read this so many times. That`s why I tend to put up lower res files or ones that are there to promote  or just share. I`ve had more nicked from flickr than there though

Hinfrance

No-one has ever knicked any of my pictures - ever. So I find it really hard to give a monkeys. And I never post any pictures on bookface anyway.
Howard  My CC Gallery
My Flickr
The theory seems to be that as long as a man is a failure he is one of God's children, but that as soon as he succeeds he is taken over by the Devil. H.L Mencken.

Reinardina

Andy, I cannot find a link. It is an 'article' (read advertisement) "in association with Trend Micro." In yesterday's Telegraph.
I'll see if I can take a photograph of it tomorrow, when it's light.

I never have had a photograph stolen, or at least I don't know about it. They're probably not worth it (yet?).
It's the principle I hate; I have always avoided competitions, or anything, where you had to hand over the copyright.
__________________
Reinardina.

Beauty is bought by judgment of the eye.
Shakespeare. (Love's Labours Lost.)

Oldboy

Err....the terms of a contract like that would be considered unfair under the Supply of Goods Act so, if they knick your pictures sue them.  >:(

WillyP

I don't recall any such agreement on FB, but it may have been buried in the fine print somewhere. It would make sense that FB would have such a clause.

I would think, a bigger issue than someone else using your pic, would be if someone else tried to prevent you from using your own pic. If you sign all rights away by uploading to FB, I could see that happening.

Beaux Reflets

Reading the FB terms, you do not sign all rights away. You just give a royalty free license of use within FB presence IP use. Much as you do by uploading onto here.
:beer: Andy

"Light anchors things in place and gives perspective meaning."

The choices we make are rooted in reflection.

http://beauxreflets.blogspot.com/

Reinardina

Well, that's a relief. (On other people's behalf.)

__________________
Reinardina.

Beauty is bought by judgment of the eye.
Shakespeare. (Love's Labours Lost.)

Jonathan

Quote from: Oldboy on June 10, 2012, 10:05:34 PM
Err....the terms of a contract like that would be considered unfair under the Supply of Goods Act so, if they knick your pictures sue them.  >:(

Sigh....

1 No, in the legal sense I can't see anything unfair about that.  If you offer me something you believe is worth far more than the consideration I give you but you still agree then it's not unfair.  You just agreed a bad deal.

2. You can't knowingly enter into a contract that you believe to be unfair and then rely on the "unfair" terms to get you out of it.  Basically you agree to the terms at point of agreement.  If they later transpire to be unfair then that's a whole other thing.  When they changed their policy there was a fair amount of publicity about it and they could in fact reasonably assume anybody who was interested had actually read it before agreeing.

3. Suing people costs a lot.  Like stupid amounts.  Especially if they are in another country.  Especially if that country is America.  You would basically be betting that you could cause FB enough embarrassment/cost before you ran out of money that they would pay you money to shut up.  Unfortunately they would never do that because it would open them to a class action by every one of their users.  And that would be bad for the share price.

We should be far more worried about the European version of the orphan works bill (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/index_en.htm)

Copyright is by and large over.  Europe are just mopping up the dregs of it.
It's Guest's round

spinner

I think that's actually happening here in Canada right now. A woman in Vancouver is suing FB because they pulled a picture of her from her profile and used it in one of their focused ads without
her permission.
And more, much more than this, I did it my way
Ol' blue eyes

http://ddsdigita4.wix.com/ddsdigital
https://www.flickr.com/photos/spin498/

Oldboy

Quote from: Jonathan on June 12, 2012, 09:26:44 AM
Quote from: Oldboy on June 10, 2012, 10:05:34 PM
Err....the terms of a contract like that would be considered unfair under the Supply of Goods Act so, if they knick your pictures sue them.  >:(

Sigh....

1 No, in the legal sense I can't see anything unfair about that.  If you offer me something you believe is worth far more than the consideration I give you but you still agree then it's not unfair.  You just agreed a bad deal.

2. You can't knowingly enter into a contract that you believe to be unfair and then rely on the "unfair" terms to get you out of it.  Basically you agree to the terms at point of agreement.  If they later transpire to be unfair then that's a whole other thing.  When they changed their policy there was a fair amount of publicity about it and they could in fact reasonably assume anybody who was interested had actually read it before agreeing.

3. Suing people costs a lot.  Like stupid amounts.  Especially if they are in another country.  Especially if that country is America.  You would basically be betting that you could cause FB enough embarrassment/cost before you ran out of money that they would pay you money to shut up.  Unfortunately they would never do that because it would open them to a class action by every one of their users.  And that would be bad for the share price.

We should be far more worried about the European version of the orphan works bill (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/orphan_works/index_en.htm)

Copyright is by and large over.  Europe are just mopping up the dregs of it.

Under the Regulations, a consumer is not
bound by a standard term in a contract with a
seller or supplier if that term is unfair. Under
the Regulations and the Enterprise Act we, and
other named enforcers, have powers to stop
businesses using unfair standard terms and
anyone from recommending the use of such
terms in contracts with consumers.
A consumer is an individual not acting for the
purposes of his or her trade, business or
profession.

Standard terms are those devised by a
business in advance, not individually negotiated
with the consumer. They do not have to be in
writing but typically they are found in the 'small
print' on the back of order forms and bills and
so on. While the Regulations do not apply to
any term that can be shown to have been
individually negotiated, they do apply to any
standard terms in the same contract.  :tup:

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/unfair_contract_terms/oft143.pdf

Jonathan

Well then, it seems pretty easy to make a complaint to the OFT.  If you believe the term is unfair then it doesn't matter whether they exercise it (sell one of your pictures) or not.  In fact, the longer you leave it the weaker your case.

Best of luck getting them to take action against a large US corporation though.  Government departments are generally unwilling to test whether their regulations affect overseas firms or not.

Anybody read the orphan works thing?  It's probably more useful to get angry about that...
It's Guest's round

jinky

Quote from: spinner on June 12, 2012, 07:15:25 PM
I think that's actually happening here in Canada right now. A woman in Vancouver is suing FB because they pulled a picture of her from her profile and used it in one of their focused ads without
her permission.

I posted a warning in facebook myself about this. Under facebook terms they can use any photo of yours in ads targeting your friends etc. It`s simple to stop it though. If you don`t want it to happen go to home, accounts>Facebook Ads (bottom left side) > Adverts shown by third parties > edit and choose no-one and save.

Camera Craniums is a participant in the Amazon EU Associates Program. This affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to products on Amazon.