This is the reason...

why I would never put my photos on facebook w/o a watermark
http://abcnews.go.com …ly-to-remain-behind-bars/

Look who is credited for the photo

maybe Facebook took that photo.

Mark Zuckerburg must have taken that photo.

rick_reno wrote in post #14588506
maybe Facebook took that photo.

A photo of an Irish girl????

Maybe her dad took the photo. If he did, I'm sure it is not at the top of his list of cares that someone else took credit for it.

Or am I missing a more important point?

BobOh wrote in post #14588831
Maybe her dad took the photo. If he did, I'm sure it is not at the top of his list of cares that someone else took credit for it.

Or am I missing a more important point?

You're not missing anything. There's no way in hell I'm watermarking every single photo I post on the odd chance that someone in them might die and the photo is used by a news website. I'm all for making money, but $20 at a time is a hell of a way to do it. Did you ever think that perhaps the family gave them permission to use the photo off FB?

elrey2375 wrote in post #14589001
Did you ever think that perhaps the family gave them permission to use the photo off FB?

Yeah, that was another thought that I had about it.

RichSoansPhotos wrote in post #14588416
why I would never put my photos on facebook w/o a watermark
http://abcnews.go.com …ly-to-remain-behind-bars/

Look who is credited for the photo

if its on Facebook, Even with a watermark they can still use it - they can even crop of your watermark - look at the TOS they can do what they ant with your images,

Oh and this is a news article so it would fall under fair use - Again they can edit your image to fit the need of the story

RichSoansPhotos wrote in post #14588416
why I would never put my photos on facebook w/o a watermark
http://abcnews.go.com …ly-to-remain-behind-bars/

Look who is credited for the photo

I see your point, but this is probably a bad example. Whoever actually took that photo probably isn't thinking, "oh my God, Facebook didn't give me credit for my work."

1) That's just a snapshot anyway.

2) The woman waas freaking MURDERED, and whoever took that photo probably knew her well enough to not give a flying **** about the snapshot being credited to Facebook.

3) And furthermore, never mind who took the photo. I didn't take the photo and I didn't know the woman. And yet I am STILL about a thousand times more concerned with the story than I am with the credits on the photograph. I sort of was expecting this to be a thread about the lack of a watermark somehow RESULTING in the woman's murder. And then the two things ended up having NOTHING to do with each other, and I'm just like, "WTF?" Of all the potential case examples you could use to show why people should use watermarks, you specifically choose an example in which the photographer going uncredited is about the least important thing about the story.

4) But yeah...I see your point. Doesn't really have anything to do with facebook though, it's just a general rule. Before you go flapping your mouth and showing your work, be aware of the terms of use. And that's not even really an internet thing. Hell...you don't go buy a TV or a game console without being aware of the terms of the warranty and/or the store's return policy. It's not just facebook, it's ANY website, and it's not just websites, it's ANY kind of transaction period.

But yeah...if someone I knew got murdered, probably the last thing I'd care about is that the birthday snapshot I took of that person ended up getting credited to Facebook instead of to me.

Fair enough, the person who took it probably don't care because it was family or friend who took it to publicise their daughter/sister/friend death

Clean Gene wrote in post #14589906
I see your point, but this is probably a bad example. Whoever actually took that photo probably isn't thinking, "oh my God, Facebook didn't give me credit for my work."

1) That's just a snapshot anyway.

2) The woman waas freaking MURDERED, and whoever took that photo probably knew her well enough to not give a flying **** about the snapshot being credited to Facebook.

3) And furthermore, never mind who took the photo. I didn't take the photo and I didn't know the woman. And yet I am STILL about a thousand times more concerned with the story than I am with the credits on the photograph. I sort of was expecting this to be a thread about the lack of a watermark somehow RESULTING in the woman's murder. And then the two things ended up having NOTHING to do with each other, and I'm just like, "WTF?" Of all the potential case examples you could use to show why people should use watermarks, you specifically choose an example in which the photographer going uncredited is about the least important thing about the story.

4) But yeah...I see your point. Doesn't really have anything to do with facebook though, it's just a general rule. Before you go flapping your mouth and showing your work, be aware of the terms of use. And that's not even really an internet thing. Hell...you don't go buy a TV or a game console without being aware of the terms of the warranty and/or the store's return policy. It's not just facebook, it's ANY website, and it's not just websites, it's ANY kind of transaction period.

But yeah...if someone I knew got murdered, probably the last thing I'd care about is that the birthday snapshot I took of that person ended up getting credited to Facebook instead of to me.

This is what took me aback after I read the post a second time because my mind wouldn't let me believe that he was using this case to make an example. Who bloody cares where the photo came from, a human being has died. As to the other poster's point; once you post, watermark, no watermark, doesn't matter, they can do what they want with the photo.

RichSoansPhotos wrote in post #14588416
why I would never put my photos on facebook w/o a watermark
http://abcnews.go.com …ly-to-remain-behind-bars/

Look who is credited for the photo

I'm getting a page load error

watt100 wrote in post #14591719
I'm getting a page load error

Probably taken it down, lol

A better example would be the photo that was taken out of the window of a commercial airliner of a shuttle launch. That photo was a one-off but since it was posted on twitter the photog didn't get anything.

elrey2375 wrote in post #14589001
There's no way in hell I'm watermarking every single photo I post on the odd chance that someone in them might die and the photo is used by a news website. I'm all for making money, but $20 at a time is a hell of a way to do it.

Yep. Gotta agree with this.