Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
Thread started 28 Jan 2015 (Wednesday) 03:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Facebook to own your images?

 
russellsnr2
Goldmember
Avatar
1,015 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 79
Joined Mar 2005
Location: Greek Island of Rhodes.. Ex. Sussex @ Cumbria
     
Jan 28, 2015 03:55 |  #1

Hi, Can anyone confirm this that I found posted on another site?
Not sure what the language is maybe German
http://www.radartv.nl …s-vernieuwde-voorwaarden/ (external link)

Part translated with on line translator.


"On February 1 will force the new privacy policy of Facebook. In these conditions it is clearly stated what Facebook can do with your photos. Use as your profile picture for commercial purposes. For many people this is scare and there is also a lot of noise to occur. It seems that your pictures are not only yours. Also presenter and producer Sipke Jan Bousema and inventor William Leaning here quite shocked by. They determined the app Reclaim, which you pictures may watermarks".


Many Thanks,
Russell.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Lumens
Senior Member
386 posts
Likes: 58
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Mesa, AZ
     
Jan 28, 2015 07:02 |  #2

I post a number of pics on Facebook for family and friends. I make it a point to export in Lightroom to "Email" size before posting and I add a copyright mark. Generally this will make the jpeg too small for most commercial use. Yes anyone on the net can and DOES steal your work and while you can get a copyright, the legal process will put you in the poor house LONG BEFORE you can recover any loss.

Unfortunately the fine print on the Internet allows theft to become legal or uncontrollable in many situations. The only solution is not to post at all, but I believe the main reason we shoot is for others to see what we have captured. I do my best to make sure what I post is less desirable for thieves, legal or illegal.

Any more ideas on how to make posting safer please let us all know.


FUJI XT1 -> XF 10-24, XF 18-55, XF 55-200, XF 27mm pancake
6D -> Canon 28mm f2.8 IS, Canon 50mm f1.4, Canon 85mm f1.8, Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro IS
Canon 24-105 f4L, Canon EF 70-200 f4L IS USM, Canon EF 100-400L IS
7D -> Canon EF-S 15-85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smythie
I wasn't even trying
3,637 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Likes: 587
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Sydney - Australia
     
Jan 28, 2015 16:29 |  #3

I don't upload photos to Facebook. I upload to a domain I pay for and link to the images from Facebook (or any site really)


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
benji25
Senior Member
Avatar
974 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Twin Cities
     
Jan 29, 2015 11:52 as a reply to  @ smythie's post |  #4

Facebook will not own your images. They need the rights to them in order to display them on their servers and other places.

If Facebook wants to use your photo for promotional purposes they would much rather pay a small fee then have a lawsuit brought and pay their $1,000 an hour lawyers to defend it.

Use common sense people.

Also this was already covered here: https://photography-on-the.net …read.php?t=1412​324&page=1


Website (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nathan
So boring
Avatar
7,704 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 289
Joined Aug 2007
Location: Boston
     
Feb 03, 2015 09:01 |  #5

There's a Snope article on this. It's not true.


Taking photos with a fancy camera does not make me a photographer.
www.nathantpham.com (external link) | Boston POTN Flickr (external link) |
5D3 x2 | 16-35L II | 35 L | 50L | 85L II | 135L | 580 EX II x2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
itsallart
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,944 posts
Gallery: 449 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4781
Joined Jan 2015
Location: Near Dallas
     
Feb 06, 2015 23:17 |  #6

BTW it's Dutch :) and it's just another rumor, I think :)


Renata
Seeing lights and shadows is an art :)
Renata Sharman (external link)Tanami Muse (external link)
Facebook (external link) 500px (external link)
Live Event Painting (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vk2gwk
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,275 posts
Gallery: 209 photos
Likes: 548
Joined Jun 2009
Location: One Mile Beach, NSW 2316, Australia
Post edited over 3 years ago by vk2gwk.
     
Feb 06, 2015 23:55 |  #7

The thread mentioned above covered the same subject but died about a month ago.
I agree with other posters that Facebook needs to have a non-exclusive right or "license" to publish your uploaded photos. Just like on this forum we agree to the publication of our images by accepting the forum rules.

However....
There is a distinct difference in the wording used by Facebook:

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:
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.

and the wording in the POTN forum rules:

1. (The ownership legalese)
This forum is international discussion forum about photography, photos, gear and techniques.
By registering and making posts on the photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums, you agree to abide by the Forum Rules of Use, both stated and unstated.
By posting messages to the photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums you give forum owner and maintainers permission to permanently store all message content, present it for public viewing, backup it to any location and media, present it in other form, modify *, delete, or make any use whatsoever in the Forums.

I am just a simple retired lawyer and certainly no expert in copyright law but I think that Facebook got/is asking for far more than they need to just publish your content. My apologies for the bold and coloured sections in the quote. It is just to help others read the legalese.
As others mentioned: they may not "steal" your photos for external use but with the current wording in their "terms" they can.
Others may think differently. There is a lot of speculation from bush-lawyers and other people that cannot read properly . I would like to hear the opinion of a real expert in this field (without paying a fee :) )


My name is Henk. and I believe "It is all in the eye of the beholder....."
Image Editing is allowed. Please explain what you did!
5D MkIV 5DMkIII, 50D, 24-105/1:4L IS USM + 100-400/4-5.6L IS USM + 50mm 1.4 USM + Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 VC + Sigma 150-600mm Sports + 580EXII + 430EX + YN568EXII, triggers, reflectors, umbrellas and some more bits and pieces...
Photos on: Flickr! (external link) and on my own web site. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mozes
Goldmember
Avatar
1,634 posts
Gallery: 410 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 2203
Joined Nov 2012
Location: Holland
     
Feb 07, 2015 03:50 |  #8

russellsnr2 wrote in post #17403753 (external link)
Hi, Can anyone confirm this that I found posted on another site?
Not sure what the language is maybe German
http://www.radartv.nl …s-vernieuwde-voorwaarden/ (external link)

Part translated with on line translator.


"On February 1 will force the new privacy policy of Facebook. In these conditions it is clearly stated what Facebook can do with your photos. Use as your profile picture for commercial purposes. For many people this is scare and there is also a lot of noise to occur. It seems that your pictures are not only yours. Also presenter and producer Sipke Jan Bousema and inventor William Leaning here quite shocked by. They determined the app Reclaim, which you pictures may watermarks".

Radar is a dutch television show.
That episode was about the new rules off facebook.

You can reclaim your photo's on facebook by adding a watermark.
What was happening is this.
Someone made a app, called reclaim (external link),
Its just ad a watermark on the photos.
So people start to use it, and then something strange happens.
All the reclaimed pictures where removed from some users facebook profile.
And replaced with the old not reclaimed pictures, (facebook does have a backup from all pictures).

Germany do have better privacy rules.
Facebook may not use there photo's for advertising.


*Nikon D3s * Nikon D7100 * 18-105mm kitlens * Tamron AF SP 90 mm f/2.8 VC USD Macro * Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 SP Di VC USD *
Sportplaatje (external link) I flickriver (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
7,719 posts
Gallery: 526 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1483
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
Feb 07, 2015 05:37 as a reply to  @ vk2gwk's post |  #9

VK2GWK In the section of the licence that you highlighted in red I think it would have been better to have gone all the way to the end of the word Facebook. As that significantly limits the terms of the licence compared to how it would be without those extra words. I think part of the reasoning for FB to mention images used in advertising is simple. FB want to be able to insert adverts around your images when they are displayed within FB. I'm sure it would not be long before someone tried suing FB because their image was displayed next to an advert to which they objected. As advertising is a major revenue stream for FB its not surprising that they want to protect it.

To be honest i am far more concerned about the methods of Pinterest. I see no reason why Pinterest should be able to host content directly, when it would be much simpler to just store the link. Of course that means that they will end up with broken links if the content is removed. This is something that they do not like, neither do the users, but why should a company like Pinterest be able to prevent you from removing your content from the web if you so wish. I know that they now offer a do not pin tag. IMO they should be using an OK to pin tag as the default situation. I know that they are hiding behind the Google Images ruling, but while Google caches the image, when the image is removed the cached version will disappear once Google re indexes the site. So those images quite quickly vanish. That is far from the case with Pinterest. I sincerely believe that Pinterest is the largest misuser of IP in the world. Not only that but they encourage their users to engage in IP theft for Pinterest's own benefit.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
4,975 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1261
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Feb 07, 2015 20:20 |  #10

BigAl007 wrote in post #17419858 (external link)
VK2GWK In the section of the licence that you highlighted in red I think it would have been better to have gone all the way to the end of the word Facebook. As that significantly limits the terms of the licence compared to how it would be without those extra words.

+1 to this. The end of the sentence has a major impact on its meaning and the scope of the license and shouldn't be ignored.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vk2gwk
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,275 posts
Gallery: 209 photos
Likes: 548
Joined Jun 2009
Location: One Mile Beach, NSW 2316, Australia
Post edited over 3 years ago by vk2gwk. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 08, 2015 00:22 |  #11

The scope is that obvious that it does not need to be highlighted. if I do not post "on or in connection with Facebook" it would not concern Facebook and Facebook wouldn't need "rights".
Just compare the wording that POTN uses with the Facebook text.


My name is Henk. and I believe "It is all in the eye of the beholder....."
Image Editing is allowed. Please explain what you did!
5D MkIV 5DMkIII, 50D, 24-105/1:4L IS USM + 100-400/4-5.6L IS USM + 50mm 1.4 USM + Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 VC + Sigma 150-600mm Sports + 580EXII + 430EX + YN568EXII, triggers, reflectors, umbrellas and some more bits and pieces...
Photos on: Flickr! (external link) and on my own web site. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
4,975 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1261
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Feb 08, 2015 06:55 |  #12

vk2gwk wrote in post #17421157 (external link)
The scope is that obvious that it does not need to be highlighted. if I do not post "on or in connection with Facebook" it would not concern Facebook and Facebook wouldn't need "rights".

Clearly it isn't that obvious as you misunderstood it. The limitation resulting from the text "on or in connection with Facebook" is one upon Facebook, not you, I or any other user. It means that the license we grant them only applies "on or in connection with Facebook" - hence they can not legally use the images outside of Facebook.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
16,828 posts
Gallery: 70 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3878
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Feb 08, 2015 11:33 |  #13

vk2gwk wrote in post #17419612 (external link)
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.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17421389 (external link)
Clearly it isn't that obvious as you misunderstood it. The limitation resulting from the text "on or in connection with Facebook" is one upon Facebook, not you, I or any other user. It means that the license we grant them only applies "on or in connection with Facebook" - hence they can not legally use the images outside of Facebook.

No. Listen to the old editor here. You construe "on or in connection with Facebook" as modifying "use." I think the more natural reading is to construe it as modifying "post," like this:

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

Another way to put it: "You grant us a . . . license to use whatever IP content you post on or in connection with Facebook."

It seems to me that this clause, if interpreted literally, would entitle FB to license your photos to any buyer who didn't require exclusivity--and lawyers do interpret clauses literally when a literal interpretation is in their favor.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
vk2gwk
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
12,275 posts
Gallery: 209 photos
Likes: 548
Joined Jun 2009
Location: One Mile Beach, NSW 2316, Australia
     
Feb 08, 2015 14:25 |  #14

That is the way I understood it also! Like one of my wise teachers in law school taught me: "Words are never clear". Sometimes people read in words what they wish to read and overlook ambiguities that may cause problems.

It can very well be that Facebook acts in good faith but they should have used a less ambiguous wording - like the ones used for the POTN forum. Unless they change their wording I won't put photos on Facebook.


My name is Henk. and I believe "It is all in the eye of the beholder....."
Image Editing is allowed. Please explain what you did!
5D MkIV 5DMkIII, 50D, 24-105/1:4L IS USM + 100-400/4-5.6L IS USM + 50mm 1.4 USM + Tamron 70-200mm F/2.8 VC + Sigma 150-600mm Sports + 580EXII + 430EX + YN568EXII, triggers, reflectors, umbrellas and some more bits and pieces...
Photos on: Flickr! (external link) and on my own web site. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
4,975 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1261
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Feb 08, 2015 21:05 |  #15

OhLook wrote in post #17421785 (external link)
No. Listen to the old editor here. You construe "on or in connection with Facebook" as modifying "use." I think the more natural reading is to construe it as modifying "post," like this:

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

Another way to put it: "You grant us a . . . license to use whatever IP content you post on or in connection with Facebook."

I construe it the way I do for the following reasons...
1. Your interpretation makes no sense because it has already been stated earlier in the text that the license relates to information posted to FB, so there is no need to repeat the "on FB part" - It would amount to a license that says "You allow us to use information you post on FB that you post on FB".
2. The section quoted has moved on from you posting on FB and is now talking about FBs rights when using that content therefore the modifier applies to their rights.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,015 views & 3 likes for this thread
Facebook to own your images?
FORUMS News & Rumors Photography Industry News 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is iAbstract
491 guests, 379 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.