Facebook owns your photos

[jeffbox]

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6314950779

After I read that I decided I'm no longer going to post my artistic/landscape pictures on facebook. I know 604px resolution is crap but I REALLY don't like the idea that they can use anyones' pictures for ANY purpose!

What do you think about this?

[Pete]

Have you actually read the Facebook T&C though?

# Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how we share your content through your privacy and application settings. In order for us to use certain types of content and provide you with Facebook, you agree to the following:

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 (except to the extent your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it).
2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
3. We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).

They don't own your images. They just need permission to share your content on your behalf based on your privacy settings across the network that they provide for you to link your content with others.

[Yella Fella]

thats good to know :) thanks for the info

[BOUNCINGNRG]

I've heard this before and they seem to change the T's&C's all time.

[nphsbuckeye]

I still put a nice watermark on any picture of mine worth anything on facebook.

[tigerotor77w]

Have you actually read the Facebook T&C though?

#1 is the hazy point for me, however -- I haven't found anything that says "Facebook won't use your IP without your consent [check here]."

Specifically, just after the comment about pursuant to application and privacy settings, we have this line:

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")

So... if this is the default (i.e. leaving all privacy settings unchecked), then where is the setting that says, "Absolutely not -- I am NOT giving Facebook the right to do whatever it wants with my photos"?

[saturnin]

yah all those sites that calim they own your photos.. who cares really... the chances that they will SELL or profit from it is very rare.. i watermark everything thats important.. done and done

[Alleh]

They have to have the license to allow other people to see your photos on there site. They probably wont start profiting of peoples work as it would ruin their reputation.

[jacuff]

I think you need to get some more current information...

http://www.facebook.com/fbsitegovernance
http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=79146552130

[basroil]

They have to have the license to allow other people to see your photos on there site. They probably wont start profiting of peoples work as it would ruin their reputation.

Not too sure about that... Many ads I've seen are most likely taken from personal profiles, they just have that look. May be "professionally" done in terms of proper licensing, but for a company that has no contact line for copyright violations (and removed their "report" feature for copyright violations), not too sure they would care too much about reputation with other professionals.

Have you actually read the Facebook T&C though?



They don't own your images. They just need permission to share your content on your behalf based on your privacy settings across the network that they provide for you to link your content with others.
Not entirely true:
This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account (except to the extent your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it).
By that rule, as soon as it was on their website and someone else copied the image, they do not need your permission for anything. This is equivalent to saying "Your stuff is yours until someone copies it and calls it their own. Then it's their stuff for all intensive purposes"

Best of all, if something does happen (assume some site designer uses facebook as a royalty free photo agency due to it's rules, which is technically valid operation even if it is against US laws for an individual to do so), facebook will not reimburse you even if they are at fault through their terms of use:
WE WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY LOST PROFITS OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INDIRECT, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS STATEMENT OR FACEBOOK, EVEN IF WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. OUR AGGREGATE LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF THIS STATEMENT OR FACEBOOK WILL NOT EXCEED THE GREATER OF ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100) OR THE AMOUNT YOU HAVE PAID US IN THE PAST TWELVE MONTHS. APPLICABLE LAW MAY NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY OR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. IN SUCH CASES, FACEBOOK'S LIABILITY WILL BE LIMITED TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.


But basically doesn't change any facts, you should never put professional pictures on facebook without nice, large watermarks that cannot be removed or cropped.

[DDCSD]

Those terms are pretty much standard for any website that you upload your photos onto. They have to have those terms in order to be able to display the images that you upload. Otherwise, you could technically upload your photos to FB and then turn around and sue them for copyright infringement.

Check the T&C for any website that you upload photos to (Smugmug, Zenfolio, Flickr, etc...). It is pretty much identical.

[S-S]

ok who here has even seen one of their photos being used by facebook for ANYTHING that could be classed as assuming ownership?

[jeffbox]

Pete, I have read it but it seems like you own your content, but they can use it however they like, and for profit. I understand that is probably necessary to not get sued but it still makes me a little uneasy.

But basically doesn't change any facts, you should never put professional pictures on facebook without nice, large watermarks that cannot be removed or cropped.

I agree. It's too bad though, I like having good pictures on facebook. Huge watermarks ruin them.

Those terms are pretty much standard for any website that you upload your photos onto.
Interesting, I don't use any of those programs. I just host them on a website that I pay $11/year to renew. Although, really I'm just redirecting from a nice URL to blogger. I can't find if Google/Blogger claims to own my photos too.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid.

[DDCSD]

Pete, I have read it but it seems like you own your content, but they can use it however they like, and for profit. I understand that is probably necessary to not get sued but it still makes me a little uneasy.



I agree. It's too bad though, I like having good pictures on facebook. Huge watermarks ruin them.


Interesting, I don't use any of those programs. I just host them on a website that I pay $11/year to renew. Although, really I'm just redirecting from a nice URL to blogger. I can't find if Google/Blogger claims to own my photos too.

Maybe I'm just being paranoid.



Here's what blogger.com's ToS says about your Intellectual Property that you post on or through their website (http://www.blogger.com/terms.g)

Your Intellectual Property Rights. Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Google services and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying and distributing Google services. Google furthermore reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion.

Sound familiar?

[DDCSD]

A few months ago Facebook quietly changed their ToS to state that they own your photos, and own them even after they are deleted from their servers. There was a huge uproar, and they reverted back to basically the same terms as any other website that is involved in displaying photos.

[basroil]

A few months ago Facebook quietly changed their ToS to state that they own your photos, and own them even after they are deleted from their servers. There was a huge uproar, and they reverted back to basically the same terms as any other website that is involved in displaying photos.

And then when the uproar died down they had a "vote" which was rigged in their favor, requiring 67% of ALL accounts, active or not to reject the terms. The result is they put it up again, as I posted above. The part i posted is accurate as of 5/17/09.

Here's what blogger.com's ToS says about your Intellectual Property that you post on or through their website (http://www.blogger.com/terms.g)

Your Intellectual Property Rights. Google claims no ownership or control over any Content submitted, posted or displayed by you on or through Google services. You or a third party licensor, as appropriate, retain all patent, trademark and copyright to any Content you submit, post or display on or through Google services and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through Google services which are intended to be available to the members of the public, you grant Google a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to reproduce, publish and distribute such Content on Google services for the purpose of displaying and distributing Google services. Google furthermore reserves the right to refuse to accept, post, display or transmit any Content in its sole discretion.

Sound familiar?

Sounds familiar, yes. Anything alike legally? No.
Google does not have a transferable clause in there, and that makes a huge difference. There is no need for a closed site like facebook to need transferable rights. Even worse, facebook also includes sub-licensing, which means that even if their original license is rejected, the sublicenses are legally valid.

[aram535]

It's really not that they own the photo, they "let you" keep the rights to your photo, but any that you upload they basically can do whatever they want with -- including resize, wartermark, use to promote facebook, print and use for marketing or as a greeting card -- without ever paying you anything.

It's not just them any and all social sites, including devianart uses the same TOS.

Speaking of, has anyone read Flickr's TOS lately? Maybe it's about time to re-read that too.

[jeffbox]

Here's what blogger.com's ToS says about your Intellectual Property that you post on or through their website

^^ Thanks for finding that DDCSD. It looks like EVERYONE owns my stuff already so I might as well put it on facebook!

I suppose the best way to get around this is to have your own website.

[Sunny Boaz]

I hope I do not stir up another round of discussion. But, to own your own website is safest way to go, expensive and time consuming if do it yourself, though.

[Picture North Carolina]

I hope I do not stir up another round of discussion. But, to own your own website is safest way to go, expensive and time consuming if do it yourself, though.

How is it expensive? I pay less than $7 per month for hosting and do my own web site plus, the blog is free (Wordpress).

Yes, WS maintenance takes a little time, but it's a labor of love and as the old adage goes "If you want something done right, ..."