Public Facebook Album?

[Colin Southern]

All fair points. No, it doesn't actually cost me much, but on a higher level, I worry that the trade as a whole is being taken for granted, and appropriating a hobbyist's work can put an actual pro out of work, and that does bother me.

My watermarks are purely red herrings to scare off the uninformed, and are usually placed away from the subject with less than 15% opacity.

Another problem is that some photographers rely very, very heavily on online marketing, so asking them not to post their images to the web is much like saying they need to maintain their business without marketing themselves. Tricky, to put it mildly. Quite a few people can get away without online marketing, but if your work is editorial in nature, that's a tough requirement.

I think that as with any kind of theft though one either has to just take it one the chin or do something about it. In the case of copyright theft there's an old but true saying "it's only worth as much as you're prepared to spend defending it". I don't watermark my images - and they're often big enough and perhaps sometimes good enough to steal. Do people steal them? Yep - it's happened. Am I going to spend tens of thousands of dollars punishing the guilty? Nope. Is it right? Nope. Am I going to ruin all of my publicly displayed images just so they can remove the watermark and still steal them? Nope.

Sometimes the bad guys win. It's not a good thing - but that's just the way it is.

I'd never ask anyone not to post their images to the web - that's their call. They have to accept the consequences of how they choose to do it though. I recall one site setup by friends who had a successful online business setting beads & jewelry. They created a companion site to sell photos; following "best practice" they kept the resolution low and put a watermark in the middle of each and every image. They didn't sell a single photo. Not sure if any were ever stolen or not.

[GrahamS]

This may be of interest:

http://grahams-word.blogspot.co.uk/2...terms-and.html

[William W]

As little freelance I often post my shots on Facebook . . . should I let them public and deal with the "stealing"?

As I understand the Terms and Conditions of use, it is exactly as Phil Page wrote.

So you can think of it this way - you gave your images away to Facebook when you posted them to Facebook, so any images you have on Facebook cannot be "stolen" from you.

WW

[Colin Southern]

To be honest, I think people are getting their "tights in a twist" over nothing. Undoubtedly the terms and conditions spell out the legal stuff - and if that's a bother then don't use the site.

I look at it like this - one one hand I and several hundred million people have effectively given Facebook the right to use anything of mine for their own promotion (eg selling ads -- you're not going to find them taking orders for peoples photos and selling framed prints of them). On the other hand, there are BILLIONS of photos on Facebook and no matter how good any of mine are, they'll be lost in a sea of photos just like all the others; at worst they may (but probably won't) appear in a tiny ad for someone somewhere. Effect of that on me? Zero.

On the other hand, how can facebook benefit me as a marketing tool? Simple. HUGELY.

It's a free service to us - one that has a PHENOMINAL infrastructure to support at their end. They're doing what they feel they need to to be successful - and their success serves only to benefit those who use them. Win/win. People want to have their cake and eat it to by effectively saying "No Facebook - you can't use anything that's mine in your self-promotion, but I want you to continue to provide me with access to all of your members free of charge".

I would suggest that in real-world terms anybody who uses Facebook to it's full potential stands to gain a thousand times more than they stand to lose. Keep in mind too that if Facebook turned around and start shafting people then they stand to lose big too due to the backlash.

Sorry, but it's all a big fuss over nothing in my opinion. People trying to create a problem where there isn't one.

[William W]

I agree, Colin.

That was the meaning of my quip. Facebook is an huge marketing tool just begging to be exploited: it just requires a mindset shift from business owners: and that is what I was encouraging the OP to do.

Many people setting up 'Photography' as a business are not educated in best business practices and strategies.

The OP should have jumped on the newspaper running his image as an opportunity: immediately contact the journo who penned the story, set up a meeting, bought him a beer and contracted a series of similar shots for the newspaper pro bono, provided that he gets a photo credit. . . etc build contacts; build relationships; create networks . . .

Instead we have this thread of wow and complaint. That's just not creative business thinking.

WW

[Colin Southern]

I agree, Colin.

That was the meaning of my quip. Facebook is an huge marketing tool just begging to be exploited: it just requires a mindset shift from business owners: and that is what I was encouraging the OP to do.

Many people setting up 'Photography' as a business are not educated in best business practices and strategies.

The OP should have jumped on the newspaper running his image as an opportunity: immediately contact the journo who penned the story, set up a meeting, bought him a beer and contracted a series of similar shots for the newspaper pro bono, provided that he gets a photo credit. . . etc build contacts; build relationships; create networks . . .

Instead we have this thread of wow and complaint. That's just not creative business thinking.

WW

Spot on.

Since I wrote the above post I've been trying to think of an every-day analogy. The one I came up with is a bit crude, but I think it's accurate: Every time we fly (especially overseas) we pass through airport security. By purchasing a ticket and showing up for the flight I'm willing to bet that we've "agreed" to the "terms and conditions" of various laws (country, airport, and airline) including that aviation security and/or customs can take us to a private room and strip/cavity search us if THEY believe that they have sufficient suspicion that we're carrying drugs.

And yet hundreds of millions of people still choose to fly annually. This Facebook "thinking" appears the same; a small minority are put off by something that "in theory" may (potentially) be an issue, but in practice it isn't really an issue at all.

I'll continue to promote images on Facebook - and continue to pass through airport security - and continue to sleep well at night.

[drjuice]

I regularly just go looking at photographs and often I find one that I like, especially when it has an unusual subject or an unusual structure. I grab a copy and track down the photographer to email him/her for permission to put their name in an unobtrusive area of the image and then for permission to use that as my wallpaper for a while, generally two weeks to a month.

To date, I've never been refused by any photographer, thank goodness.

I'm jes' sayin'....

v

[yogirajj]

I agree, Colin.

That was the meaning of my quip. Facebook is an huge marketing tool just begging to be exploited: it just requires a mindset shift from business owners: and that is what I was encouraging the OP to do.

Many people setting up 'Photography' as a business are not educated in best business practices and strategies.

The OP should have jumped on the newspaper running his image as an opportunity: immediately contact the journo who penned the story, set up a meeting, bought him a beer and contracted a series of similar shots for the newspaper pro bono, provided that he gets a photo credit. . . etc build contacts; build relationships; create networks . . .

Instead we have this thread of wow and complaint. That's just not creative business thinking.

WW

Facebook is in a unique position. It really doesn't matter what's in their licensing/contract, because they would be more likely legally covered by the "safe harbor" law or the equivalent. However, I will say this. Let them advertise an image that happens to be owned by "Getty Images!" Watch how fast they will run with their tails in between their legs. It's just a racket..

Photographers are no different from any other artist, or writer, or anyone who creates content in my opinion. However, choose your battles wisely. There is so much misunderstanding concerning copyright, and that's on both sides (the copyright holder, and the person using "said intellectual property"). The internet has changed everything for people who create. Unless you have a big name for yourself, don't worry about it. Now of course their are things you can do to make it harder for someone to "steal" your work, but the key phrase here is "make it harder", not eliminate entirely (that's impossible).

If you caught someone right now using one of your images; I guess you could write a simple cease and desist email. If you have proof of ownership/copyright registration, you can contact the website your image is on, and they will remove it following a DMCA claim. Websites are really good with DMCA claims, they usually act upon it very quickly. The last resort is get your lawyer. My opinion is, if a small time photographer (when I say small time, I mean you're not charging $20,000 per framed image) who get's a lawyer to go after an infringer to get damages; how much money realistically you think you're gonna get, if the person your going after more likely has no real money? This is why most large companies send cease and desist letters first, because it's too costly to go after these MF; and most times the infringer would get scared and take it down. However, if they DON'T, then that's a problem, and copyright holder will have every right to come after them hard, 'cause they're just being an *sshole. Having said that, I don't mean to imply that copyright infringement is ok; nor am I saying it's not worth perusing it, I'm just saying lest look at this from a practical point of view. If it's not BBC, or some major department retail store that stole your images, don't spend your life searching for your images on line; you can spend that time taking more photos..



Yogi

[William W]

Yogi,

Your response doesn't make sense as a reply to what I wrote. Getty Images would not put their images up on Facebook for advertising purposes.

And the OP is not talking about website publishing: the instance here is that a newspaper lifted the OP's image from the OP's Facebook page and then published it - DCMA takedowns etc are irrelevant.


As I understand the situation the salient points in regard to this instance are -

1. The OP has resigned his rights to the image the instant that he posted his image to Facebook.

2. When the newspaper published the imaged tat they lifted from Facebook, the OP could have made that a business opportunity.


WW

[oldgreygary]

I think that an earlier comment hit the 'nail on the head' when it said about the volume of images that are daily posted online. The likelyhood of an image being 'stolen' and vast fortunes made from it must be pretty remote . I guess that if it is an image that's precious to you then the answer is simple, don't post it. But, also as previously said if a more positive line is taken and it is seen as an opportunity then that seems to me to be a better way forward.

Gary

[yogirajj]

Yogi,

Your response doesn't make sense as a reply to what I wrote. Getty Images would not put their images up on Facebook for advertising purposes. DMCA is re

And the OP is not talking about website publishing: the instance here is that a newspaper lifted the OP's image from the OP's Facebook page and then published it - DCMA takedowns etc are irrelevant.


As I understand the situation the salient points in regard to this instance are -

1. The OP has resigned his rights to the image the instant that he posted his image to Facebook.

2. When the newspaper published the imaged tat they lifted from Facebook, the OP could have made that a business opportunity.


WW

Dude, You misunderstood my point. When I mentioned "safe harbor" law, that means ANY MEMBER of a site who posts images illegally. So in essence, if a member illegally uses an image as their profile image, and Facebook uses it to show it's memberships, that would be an infringement; so facebook doesn't have the legal right to anything. Facebook has no control over any images that is posted by it's members. So, what doesn't make sense is facebook's policy on images. So in essence it's the same thing, If the newspaper reporter did not use the image outside of fair use, why are people getting bent out of shape? unless it is extremely rare that a newspaper would use anyone's image in a way that is outside of fair use. But then again, that's for the courts do decide, each situation is different.

Yogi

[Colin Southern]

1. The OP has resigned his rights to the image the instant that he posted his image to Facebook.

Hi Bill,

I'm not sure of something ...

I would have thought that if Facebook chooses to use his photo somewhere then they can (by virtue of the fact that we agree to let them do that by using their site), but I haven't taken that to mean that once an image is uploaded to Facebook that that gives everybody else the right to do with it as they please as well.

Have I missed something somewhere?

I would have thought if Facebook wants to use one of my photos in an ad that their paid for then that's legal - if one of their affiliates uses the photo then that's probably legal - but if some non-affiliated individual/group just helps themselves, that's NOT legal.

[Quentin88]

The OP should have jumped on the newspaper running his image as an opportunity: immediately contact the journo who penned the story, set up a meeting, bought him a beer and contracted a series of similar shots for the newspaper pro bono, provided that he gets a photo credit. . . etc build contacts; build relationships; create networks . . .

Instead we have this thread of wow and complaint. That's just not creative business thinking.

WW

I did =P
I proposed other shots (and myself as photographer) in exchange to credits for my pictures to the newspaper, the answer was "No" =P
Long story short, since they knew I have differents "political ideas" from them they just said "a collaboration isn't possible"...
Maybe you are right, I should had bought them some beers or, even better, wine '-' Some of those pictures were even under creative commons license, so really I don't understand why was so hard to give me credit for them '-' Italy is a strange place.

P.S.: I'm not complaining '-' I just asked your opinion on public facebook albums... ok maybe a little bit I'm complaining, but just a little bit, a newspaper that say to "don't like you" but used a lot of your pictures is annoying '-' If my post sounded like "too much whining" I'm sorry =P I just wanted people opinions on facebook public albums ^^

[William W]

Yogi,

Your are correct.
I don't understand your point.

Also, my name is William or Bill: not Dude.

WW

[William W]

I proposed other shots (and myself as photographer) in exchange to credits for my pictures to the newspaper, the answer was "No” . . . Long story short, since they knew I have differents "political ideas" from them they just said "a collaboration isn't possible"...
Maybe you are right, I should had bought them some beers or, even better, wine '-' Some of those pictures were even under creative commons license, so really I don't understand why was so hard to give me credit for them '-' Italy is a strange place.

Thanks for providing that additional information.
Maybe I was correct and a glass or two of wine would have helped. The point is we don’t know. Entering into any negotiation situation we can usually take away two set of results – what worked and what didn’t work.
If you have analysed what worked and what didn’t work in that negotiation, then you have up-skilled your business practice and that will allow you to have leverage in attaining a better outcome next time.

***

P.S.: I'm not complaining '-' I just asked your opinion on public facebook albums... ok maybe a little bit I'm complaining, but just a little bit, a newspaper that say to "don't like you" but used a lot of your pictures is annoying '-' If my post sounded like "too much whining" I'm sorry =P I just wanted people opinions on facebook public albums ^^

Please re-read what I wrote, viz:
“Instead we have this thread of wow and complaint. That's just not creative business thinking.”
(my underline for emphasis)
What I mean is this thread contains wow and complaint and I think that is un-necessary. There are many threads and discussions here and in other fora about people “stealing” images from Facebook and in my opinion the discussion is passé.
If, as a business strategy one choose to post anything on Facebook then it is my opinion that those images are expendable enough to be handed out anywhere without any further expense or sweat expended in ‘righting any wrongs’.

I was not particularly stipulating that you were complaining – I was addressing the thread and the discussion in general.

As to my opinion on Facebook public albums, I gave you direct advice on that: it is all in your mindset. You resign your rights when you post on Facebook so therefore nothing is stolen from you.
As well as giving that response, I also gave some hints as to what you could have done to leverage your business: but I didn’t know that you had already pursued a path similar to what I suggested because you didn’t provide that detailed information in the OP.

As an additional comment maybe you should vet the images you post on Facebook such that those images would not be ‘useful’ to that particular newspaper: it is difficult to provide detailed comment because we have no idea what you general work is and what mages the newspaper published.

Nonetheless, I don’t think that Italy is any more or less strange than anywhere else: I used to deal with many journalists who work in local newspapers and most will take the easiest road possible, that’s why I suggested a beer, because that is usually an easy “yes”. Once in “yes” mode, agreement on subsequent photo credits, are usually forthcoming; but that is not something that can be done over the telephone or in a five minute conversation.

WW

[William W]

I'm not sure of something ...
Have I missed something somewhere?
I would have thought if Facebook wants to use one of my photos in an ad that their paid for then that's legal - if one of their affiliates uses the photo then that's probably legal – but if some non-affiliated individual/group just helps themselves, that's NOT legal.

Gidday Colin,

Advice given to me addresses both those points.

First I’ll give two extracted references (my underline for emphasis) then a précis of my understanding of the advice which was given to me:

Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

1. 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.
. . .

4. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).

Extract [Facebook] Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, Nov 2013

***

Following various conversations suggesting how parts of our business might use Facebook, the understandings I have are:

1. If I want to use Facebook as a general marketing tool, then I had best use the public setting.

2. Doing so allows Facebook to use that content as they like without paying me a zac or giving me credit for it.

3. Doing so allows any person to use that content as they like without paying me a zac or giving me credit for it. (The arrangement of the clauses and the positioning of the ‘and to associate it with you’ is important. The interpretation is that it is NOT necessary to associate ‘you’ with any use of your IP material, but it means that the Facebook User is just giving permission for others so to do, if they wish.)

4. I can stop any further (not past) use, by Facebook, of my IP material if I delete that material or delete my account – provided that the IP material has not been already shared and subsequently NOT deleted by other user(s). Obviously if my images have been reposted by any other user, then deleting them from my Facebook is irrelevant for the purposes of my agreement to Facebook Policy.

5. To address your question of "NOT legal" that's where it gets difficult. Probably best to answer with an example:

If for an example, someone used one of my pictures of an interior of a Wedding Reception House in a brochure and it was lifted:

1. from my Facebook (public) Page
- OR -
2. from the Facebook of someone who lifted it from MY Facebook (in a private setting) and subsequently reposted it on their own Facebook in a Public setting . . .

that might or might not be "legal" and as I am aware there is no a test case here (AUS).

But my advice is that one defence which could be made, would be that I had agreed to the use of my image (in either scenario) when I posted it to Facebook by virtue of the T&G of Facebook.

As I understand the advice given to me, that defence could be made to be strong enough that I don't want to be the test case, here.

***

In Summary, for all practical purposes: by posting an image Facebook, one resigns ones rights to those images.

The above is not legal advice, merely a layman’s précis of his understanding of the advice that he has been given.

***

I don’t resign from my opinion that Facebook is a potentially great marketing tool, but it is also my opinion that the content that one posts on Facebook (i.e. Images) has to be managed from the outset, if one is to use Facebook effectively.

Hope that assists you and others and also clarifies my understandings of the ins and outs of Facebook as a business tool.

regards,

Bill

[jcuknz]

2. Only post small sized images. This helps a lot because the thief can't produce large prints
.

In similarf discussions like this over the year the 'small' file repeatedly comes up but following on froma plea for help from somebody who only had smallish web files and the originals were lost I experimented with a file, first reducing it to a small size and then increasing [ interpolating/re-sampling ] and without being critical from a photographer's point of view it was quite good.

I suspect that pirates do not look at the result of their handiwork in the same way that we do.

I do not see much point in getting into a tizzy about it when it is very hard and expensive to do anything meaningful about the matter.... post and accept or don't post.