Newspaper use of Twitter Feed

[JamesC]

I have seen quite a few online newspapers inserting a twitter feed  image into the body of a news article.  They don't reproduce the image and credit Twitter, they simply display the image posted by another user in a twitter feed-style window.

 

There is an example here.  I've used this because I have noticed the photogographer (Alex Florence) offering these images for sale to newspapers via Twitter today.  Persumably the twitter feed approach enables the paper to illustrate the article with the image for free?  Is that right?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11988783/Pupils-taken-to-hospital-after-collapsing-at-school-latest.html

 

James

[spacecadet]

It's an infringement in my book unless the paper has negotiated a licence with the photographer.

BTW it's FB, not Twitter.

[Jill Morgan]

The author is sharing via facebook. If the photographer has allowed sharing (especially the option of sharing on "a page you manage"), I don't think there is much he can do about it. He should disallow that option.

 

Of course facebook has the right as well to sell the photos to anyone they want.

 

Jill

[spacecadet]

I'm talking about UK law.

[Jill Morgan]

I'm talking about UK law.

 

If the photographer allows sharing of his photos, then that would cover the paper. The photographer should change his facebook settinsg so this won't happen in the future.

 

Jill

[fotoDogue]

Sharing on FaceBook isn't an option you can disable. You can set the permissions to "Friends" or "Friends of Friends" but anyone who can see the image can either share it or download it via the Options menu. FB "Sharing" just posts a link to  the original image. When viewers click on the image it brings them back to the original post. However, if they download the image. it get downloaded to their hard drive with a new filename. No idea whether or not the metatags remain intact. That's why photographers should always use a watermark on any image posted on social media.

 

The FaceBook license only allows sharing it on FaceBook. They have a FB Newsfeed that shows "public" images and specifically says any sharing outside of FB requires permission from the photographer.

 

I've seen various feeds on newspaper and other sites showing  Twitter and Instagram photos. Many social media sites offer a script to embed photos in websites. The only way I know of to control images on Instagram or Twitter is to set your account to "Private" so you can approve or reject whoever follows you.

 

fD

[Jill Morgan]

Sharing on FaceBook isn't an option you can disable. You can set the permissions to "Friends" or "Friends of Friends" but anyone who can see the image can either share it or download it via the Options menu. FB "Sharing" just posts a link to  the original image. When viewers click on the image it brings them back to the original post. However, if they download the image. it get downloaded to their hard drive with a new filename. No idea whether or not the metatags remain intact. That's why photographers should always use a watermark on any image posted on social media.

 

The FaceBook license only allows sharing it on FaceBook. They have a FB Newsfeed that shows "public" images and specifically says any sharing outside of FB requires permission from the photographer.

 

I've seen various feeds on newspaper and other sites showing  Twitter and Instagram photos. Many social media sites offer a script to embed photos in websites. The only way I know of to control images on Instagram or Twitter is to set your account to "Private" so you can approve or reject whoever follows you.

 

fD

 

I was referring to the embedding of the image. It's a great way for papers to legally steal your image. It's a feature you can't turn off, so I think photographers sharing on facebook will have to start putting their watermarks in better places than this photographer does. 

 

Jill