Niels Quist Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 Just found my Norwegian Dreamliner photo recently used by Telegraph Travel on Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/Telegraphtravel In my opinion the Telegraph has now transferred my copyright to Facebook, I see that as a violation of my copyright for a lousy few dollars. Is it at all legal? I better get out of that newspaper deal. What are your views on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted July 9, 2014 Share Posted July 9, 2014 You know it was also used by the Puffington here: http://thepuffington.com/tag/travel/page/2/ Sorry, the Puffington, not Huffington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Not sure if the newspaper violated your copyright, but, as you know, Facebook's terms of use allow them to exploit your image further. The newspaper scheme doesn't sound like it's worth the angst (or the piddly profits) to me. However, I guess if you're based in the UK and sell dozens of images every month, it could be worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 You know it was also used by the Puffington here: http://thepuffington.com/tag/travel/page/2/ Sorry, the Puffington, not Huffington Thanks, Jill. No, I didn't know. Not sure if the newspaper violated your copyright, but, as you know, Facebook's terms of use allow them to exploit your image further. The newspaper scheme doesn't sound like it's worth the angst (or the piddly profits) to me. However, I guess if you're based in the UK and sell dozens of images every month, it could be worthwhile. No, I think you are right, John. They probably have (taken / been given) the right to do so. But from the photographer's point of view it is a violation and a giving away of rights. I only sell very few photos to British newspapers, price is low and the sales always result in massive uses other places that are difficult to deal with. I think I will leave the newspaper scheme, it is not worth it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The newspaper scheme does give you regular sales, albeit for a pittance. I assume that this assists your ranking which can lead to other more profitable sales. (I have just received notification of a license for a popular scheme image to a non scheme paper for about 5x the scheme fee; not the first time this has happened). Of course we don't know if these small value sales make much impact on ranking, the magic formula remains a mystery. Currently in but considering my options, it's not simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digi2ap Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 I'm surprised that the Telegraph Travel digital team paste images directly into FB rather than add them as a link back to the article which is on their own site. Doing it this way means the images have little context and, as you say, it opens up a whole raft of issues for the image rights. Not great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The Alamy contract doesn't allow sublicensing without permission so you haven't assigned any rights to FB at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Facebook's terms of use allow them to exploit your image further. No. Niels hasn't agreed to FB's terms so he's not bound by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Todd Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 The Huffington Post (and a few others) Facebook and tweet images all the time, usually without credit to the source save for a link back to the original story. The image is usually a good size and in the clear with no watermarking. Have a look at @HuffPostUKPics on Twitter for examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 An interesting post from a New York law firm http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted July 10, 2014 Author Share Posted July 10, 2014 Thank you all. Depressive reading - also Jill's article. Not good news for photographers. If only the papers would link to the article and photo instead and include a credit line. Mark is probably right that I haven't agreed to FBs terms as I haven't posted the image. But will they willingly accept this? I haven't seen anything about third party uploaders to FB. Perhaps it is time that agencies / Alamy should state some rules about image buyers' posting of images at these sites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Facebook's terms of use allow them to exploit your image further. No. Niels hasn't agreed to FB's terms so he's not bound by them. True, but the newspaper has probably agreed to them. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Thank you all. Depressive reading - also Jill's article. Not good news for photographers. If only the papers would link to the article and photo instead and include a credit line. Mark is probably right that I haven't agreed to FBs terms as I haven't posted the image. But will they willingly accept this? I haven't seen anything about third party uploaders to FB. Perhaps it is time that agencies / Alamy should state some rules about image buyers' posting of images at these sites. The ease with which we use social media, mostly without really reading all the legal crap, (I believe they count on that) makes it bad for everyone, not just photographers. You post a picture on facebook, or tweet it, of your friends at a party. Someday it shows up on some billboard somewhere, without your permission or the permission of the people in the photograph. And you have left yourself open to the lawsuit, not facebook or twitter as you absolve them of all legal responsiblitly when you sign up. Same with Instagram. So according to this law firm, you are responsible, not twitter or facebook or instagram for any problems arising in the future from a photo of yours they may have sold to someone without your knowledge (as you have given them permission when you signed up). And your privacy settings really don't matter, cause as soon as one of your friends shares it, it is no longer under your privacy settings but theirs and so on and so on and so on. Just think of all the photos Alamy tweets and photographers tweet back to Alamy. These are the exact words on Facebooks Statement of Rights and Responsibilities 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." I sent an email through "Ask James" about the tweeting of photos and also if they were aware of these conditions. Haven't heard back. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Another interesting article about Twitter selling photos: http://www.cnet.com/news/twitpic-and-twitter-can-sell-your-photos-but-theyre-not-the-only-ones/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted July 10, 2014 Share Posted July 10, 2014 Facebook's terms of use allow them to exploit your image further. No. Niels hasn't agreed to FB's terms so he's not bound by them. True, but the newspaper has probably agreed to them. No? This really all depends (I would have thought) upon the agreement made between Alamy and the licensee (in this case, a newspaper). The photographer is the copyright holder and has not agreed to waive that copyright. They have however, agreed to license the image via a third party (Alamy) in agreement with whatever licensing arrangements are put in place by that third party. This increasingly seems to include that the licensee may use the image on social media. That being so, by allowing Alamy to make such licensing arrangements, we are by default agreeing to the T&Cs put in place by whatever social media platform in which our images may be used, no? Therefore, I believe that Alamy should begin to place restrictions on how licensed images may be used on social media platforms, whether that be by insisting upon a copyright statement, credit line or some other new strategy, I don't know, but this is increasingly important and of some concern. I'll be interested to hear of James' response to your e-mail, Jill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 An interesting post from a New York law firm http://www.nyccounsel.com/business-blogs-websites/who-owns-photos-and-videos-posted-on-facebook-or-twitter/ What is not covered in this article is what happens if someone else uploads images which are not actually theirs? Thousands of my images appear on Facebook without my authorisation or permission and as Facebook strips metadata (which I thought was illegal), I cannot track the source of the original poster to send them a DMCA. When I find my images on FB, I go through the normal FB hoops to find the copyright DMCA page - they don't make it easy for some reason - and then send them a DMCA. To their credit, FB is quick to act on copyright infringement and then, of course, I get abuse from the infringer. When I politely asked one recent infringer who had one of my images as a banner on her FB page to remove the image, I received a vitriolic response from her advising me that she could show any image she liked as her profile page and more or less told me to get lost. I said,"Fine, I will send FB a DMCA - look it up" which elicited more abuse when FB remove the image. As she was a self professed "psychic and a mystic", I did suggest to her that she should have seen it coming...that may have upset her a tad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dlmphotog Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 As she was a self professed "psychic and a mystic", I did suggest to her that she should have seen it coming...that may have upset her a tad! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Mitchell Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Did she ask for crystal ball use as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheila Smart Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 The following was only part of the tirade I received from her (I don't know who my "two friends" were, probably from the Copyright Infringement Group I belong to): You got your revenge, your two friends badgered, insulted and slandered me some more and instead of you doing something to compliment me as I did for you, by using that image on my page, you chose to try and ruin me and hurt my public image, thanks so much. Yet, here I am apologizing to you for a wrong I didn't knowingly commit, so out of return respect and as one artist to another, are you all willing to apologize to me for the deliberate wrongs you have committed against me, as an act of revenge and in such a massive public way? If you don't, then it surely proves who the better artist is here ...and all I did was get Facebook to remove the image. Of course, I should feel highly honoured to have someone nick my work for two years. I truly wish that the image was registered with the USCO but it wasn't but it will be. BTW, this image is on over 400 sites without authority or permission and it's a constant battle to stop the infringement. Unfortunately, the original image was on RedBubble without a watermark and after constantly attempting in vain to have RB watermark large thumbnails, I eventually cancelled my membership but the proverbial genie was out of the bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Despite my watermark, I'm found several screen grabs of my photos posted on FaceBook, obviously without my permission. One way to deal with this is to click on the photo, and then click on "Options" that appears below the photo and choose "Report" to FaceBook. If they agree that the photo violates your copyright, or in some way violates their community standards, they will remove it within 24 hours. You have the option of remaining anonymous to the infringer or sending them a private message. You may have to supply one or two URLs that show it is your image. I believe I used both my personal PhotoShelter website and Alamy. This may not help in terms of recovering any fees but it will help you avoid the kind of personal interactions Sheila describes and stop any subsequent sharing. fD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
losdemas Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 For future reference: Facebook's DMCA and a useful list (published here before) of DMCA contacts by Plagiarism Today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 by allowing Alamy to make such licensing arrangements, we are by default agreeing to the T&Cs put in place by whatever social media platform in which our images may be used, no? Alamy's EULA specifically excludes sublicensing and we have all signed that, but we haven't agreed to FB's terms. We haven't signed FB's terms and the customer EULA excludes sublicensing. However on a close reading of the contributor contract we may have delegated to Alamy the ability to negotiate on sublicensing so as to permit FB use. It would be nice to have James' view on this. I have one IQ licence which specifically mentions FB and Twitter. Perhaps images where they are specifically referred to are covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Photographers should also be aware that FaceBook now has their newswire https://www.facebook.com/FBNewswireAny image that's uploaded to FB, where permissions are set to public, could potentially be shared in this service. So far I don't think I've noticed any images from actual publications shared in this way but the possibility is certainly there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jill Morgan Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Photographers should also be aware that FaceBook now has their newswire https://www.facebook.com/FBNewswire Any image that's uploaded to FB, where permissions are set to public, could potentially be shared in this service. So far I don't think I've noticed any images from actual publications shared in this way but the possibility is certainly there. So in theory, one of us good sell a news photo to a newspaper, they put it on their facebook page, and then facebook in turn can send it out without your permission over its own Newswire. Jill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotoDogue Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 So in theory, one of us good sell a news photo to a newspaper, they put it on their facebook page, and then facebook in turn can send it out without your permission over its own Newswire. Jill Yes. Facebook adds images whose privacy settings are set to "Public", and states "This image is embeddable: (photographer or source) via Facebook Contact (Photographer or source) via Facebook for other usage requests" Anyone on FaceBook who "Likes" or views the FaceBook newswire can share the image on their page where it will later appear on their friends' newsfeeds. If you don't want your personal photos to be available to the Newswire, make sure the permissions are set to "Friends" or "Friends of Friends." Beyond the terms of the contract, we as photographers have no control how a client may set permissions on a particular photo. They're most likely to set it to "Public." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.