Copyright Facebook

[Jill Morgan]

i came across the first photos I have seen with Facebook's copyright on the photos, obviously taken from this guys facebook page.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2743563/Ex-Navy-SEAL-turned-TV-star-charged-faking-story-shot-attackers-shopping-mall.html

 

So watch it there guys, some day we may see some of ours if we post them there.

 

Jill

[christian58]

Thats weird!  FB for pictures is non commercial so how can they insist on copyrights?

[spacecadet]

The Mail is blanket crediting. It puts '©Alamy' on Alamy images.

[Abiyoyo]

Is Daily Mail paying to Facebook for the use of those images? Unfortunately the author will not receive anything.

[Ed Endicott]

I have had this happen in the past with some of my newsworthy images. Essentially, the Daily Mail downloaded the image from Facebook and used it in the paper (or online).

 

I have been fighting a copyright case where one of my images was used on YouTube by another photographer.  I sent a DMCA notice and YouTube took it down.  The infringer disputed it, and YouTube will be putting the video back up next week unless I file a restraining order through a court of law.  I have exchanged emails with the infringer where I've explained the issues and the problem, and I received nothing but insults in return.  To make a long story short and via discussions with Carolyn Wright's legal team as well as general counsel for the National Press Photographer's Association - essentially, if the image was not registered with the copyright office prior to the infringement, then you can't claim statutory damages....and you'll end up hiring an attorney at $200-350 an hour and get less than that in return IF you win the case.  In this case, I doubt the image has been formerly copyrighted and The Daily Mail will argue it was "newsworthy" and it falls under the guise of "fair use".

 

Jill, we are not only exposed if WE post the images there, but if you have an image that was used in the Daily Mail, and the person in the image downloads it from the Daily Mail and uses it as their Facebook profile picture, then another news agency or blog can copy that image from Facebook.  I have had that happen as well.

 

These days, I'm frustrated by the whole copyright system.  We're living in an era of low integrity and unenforceable laws when it comes to copyright.

[spacecadet]

We have fair dealing in the UK but it can't apply to a photograph used for news reporting. We don't have copyright registration.

I think this one was from the guy's own site so none of this may apply, but if someone else copies one's image from FB it's infringement pure and simple. You only give FB a licence, no-one else.

[Ed Endicott]

Interesting.  In the email explanation sent to me, they sent a link to "What's an infringement worth".  You can clearly see the big differences between whether work is registered or not....

 

http://www.photoattorney.com/whats-an-infringement-worth/

 

...and with the royalty rate of $6 that we are receiving (presumably $12 that our agents are licensing these images at), hiring an attorney makes no sense at $200 - $350 per hour.

 

If you're a U.S. based photographer, essentially, the lesson is you MUST file with the copyright office at least once per quarter as part of your regular workflow otherwise there's essentially nothing you can do to enforce your copyrights.

 

Images that have crossed borders such as Jill's example above depend on the where the photographer's domicile is...so the same would apply under the Berne Convention

 

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html

[John Mitchell]

"These days, I'm frustrated by the whole copyright system.  We're living in an era of low integrity and unenforceable laws when it comes to copyright."

 

Very true. I wonder if there will be such a thing as "copyright" in a decade from now.

[Martin P Wilson]

But we have not granted Facebook copyright so that byline is WRONG!

[Martin P Wilson]

 

But we have not granted Facebook copyright so that byline is WRONG!

By signing on to Facebook we have agreed to their terms of service which include using and monetizing ALL of our content including our private info,things we post as well as out photos.

 

Yahoo NEWS and many tv stations always use Facebook photos for stories.I see it all the time.

 

L

 

 

I agree that the posters have agreed to the Facebook terms but they have granted a licence NOT COPYRIGHT. That is passing off.

[MariaJ]

I've seen many news stories where public photos from facebook have been used to illustrate the story (usually about the person who has the photos posted).  Who knows if fb was even consulted, let alone paid for licensing.

 

I only use fb for posting to my friends, nothing public.  I think what fb can do with your photos is limited by how you've posted them (public or not).

[IanGibson]

Coincidentally I was reading a magazine today in which every photograph was from Flickr. They were all attributed, and all the ones I could find were posted under Creative Commons, so used legally.

 

I wonder if the photographers had been notified. It would have been polite, if nothing else.

[Martin P Wilson]

Coincidentally I was reading a magazine today in which every photograph was from Flickr. They were all attributed, and all the ones I could find were posted under Creative Commons, so used legally.

 

I wonder if the photographers had been notified. It would have been polite, if nothing else.

 

I thought under Creative Commons acknowledging and linking to the photographer was the default requirement.

[spacecadet]

Yes but not not

 

 

I thought under Creative Commons acknowledging and linking to the photographer was the default requirement.

 

Yes, but notification isn't required.

[mickfly]

I frequent a Facebook group where almost every photo is Flickr CC, with attribution given, but I don't know if they contact the photographers.

[Liam Bunce]

Having read the new T/C i deleted all of my images from FB about 3 weeks ago.

[John Walker]

I belong to a Facebook History Group Remembering Canterbury As It Use To Be.  There are thousands of photos on there, many of which have been copied from photos in the archives of the Beaney Museum in Canterbury or from books without permission to put them on line.  I've tackled the group owner and he is convinced that as long as he credits the photographer (when known) there is no copyright issue.  He is actively encouraging 7500 members to add photos without copyright as he in convinced he is correct.

[spacecadet]

I belong to a Facebook History Group Remembering Canterbury As It Use To Be.  There are thousands of photos on there, many of which have been copied from photos in the archives of the Beaney Museum in Canterbury or from books without permission to put them on line.  I've tackled the group owner and he is convinced that as long as he credits the photographer (when known) there is no copyright issue.  He is actively encouraging 7500 members to add photos without copyright as he in convinced he is correct.

Hppefully you can teach him the facts of life, in particular the very narrow meaning of fair dealing, and that credit is a legal right, not a reward.

Would there be much from living photographers?

[Ace]

Surely if you stamp copyright on your photos there is not much value to Facebook to use your pictures. Also, for people who upload from their phone a useful APP to download is iwatermark.

[Catesy]

Surely if you stamp copyright on your photos there is not much value to Facebook to use your pictures. Also, for people who upload from their phone a useful APP to download is iwatermark.

I Agree Ace.

I have been using iwatermark for a few years.

 

After reading the T&C on FB coming into force at the end of the month I removed most of my photos from my personal page.

 

I have another FB page, that is public and I know there is no way that I can stop them being shared, (because it is Publlc) so they all have a watermark on them.

I have found my images on quite a few websites. Most of them have given a link to my website on them. They might have even been copied off my website (which are also watermarked)

 

I know that a lot of people (other photographers mostly) that don't like a watermark through them, but my logic is this:-

If Social sites are using artists work without re-numeration and we stop posting on these social site it won't stop them using other people's photos.

So we can stop posting or we can watermark, which Ace has pointed out, and makes them less appealing to use, it will drive the quality of (stolen, in M.O.) images down.

 

Hopefully, that will make the perceived value of our images go up and competing publications will want to have better images than their competitor, driving them back to photo agencies / photographers.

 

There may be a flaw in my thinking, but its a thought.

 

I know this isn't perfect, but I don't seem to know what else we can do about it.

 

Another thought. Would it be a good idea if Alamy had an opt out of licensing for social media use ?

[wiskerke]

Another thought. Would it be a good idea if Alamy had an opt out of licensing for social media use ?

But how?

One of the larger clients at this moment maintains a blog on Tumbler. And posts all their slide shows on there. One of my images went viral and within a week I counted 3500+ occurrences of my image on blogs, mostly Tumblr blogs. 1ct per use! Nothing could be done about it because the license gives the client the right to use the image on social media. And you all know the rest.

 

wim

[Catesy]

 

Another thought. Would it be a good idea if Alamy had an opt out of licensing for social media use ?

 

But how?

One of the larger clients at this moment maintains a blog on Tumbler. And posts all their slide shows on there. One of my images went viral and within a week I counted 3500+ occurrences of my image on blogs, mostly Tumblr blogs. 1ct per use! Nothing could be done about it because the license gives the client the right to use the image on social media. And you all know the rest.

 

wim

When you say 'one of the larger clients' do you mean Alamy or yours? (I'm very new to this)

 

I'm just suggesting that if Alamy had a 'not for social media use' tick box, it would give photographers a choice wether or not they want clients to use their images on social media.

It's obviously not going to help you in your situation, but it may help some photographers. It's not a complete solution.

I'll admit that I may have missed something key here or I have not understood fully. As I say I'm completely new to stock and I'm still trying grasp the fundamentals by reading posts by vets such as yourself.

[wiskerke]

 

 

Another thought. Would it be a good idea if Alamy had an opt out of licensing for social media use ?

But how?

One of the larger clients at this moment maintains a blog on Tumbler. And posts all their slide shows on there. One of my images went viral and within a week I counted 3500+ occurrences of my image on blogs, mostly Tumblr blogs. 1ct per use! Nothing could be done about it because the license gives the client the right to use the image on social media. And you all know the rest.

 

wim

When you say 'one of the larger clients' do you mean Alamy or yours? (I'm very new to this)

 

I'm just suggesting that if Alamy had a 'not for social media use' tick box, it would give photographers a choice wether or not they want clients to use their images on social media.

It's obviously not going to help you in your situation, but it may help some photographers. It's not a complete solution.

I'll admit that I may have missed something key here or I have not understood fully. As I say I'm completely new to stock and I'm still trying grasp the fundamentals by reading posts by vets such as yourself.

 

 

It's a client of Alamy that is using a lot of our images.

 

You do have the possibility to opt out by setting restrictions for each or all images.

Occasionally (but more often now) I notice that agencies or individual contributors have excluded small size web use and such. My guess is that this in effect is blocking social media use.

 

wim

[DDoug]

I think it would help if "restrictions" were changed to "allowances" using radio buttons that correspond exactly to the buttons available under the "Buy this image now for a 5 year license" heading for each photo.

 

Why have one expressed in the negative and the other in the positive?

 

Regarding Jill’s original post, I wonder if it would help to upload an image to one’s own website and then put a link on Facebook. If it is not directly uploaded to FB, can they still claim copyright, fair use, or whatever?