New Facebook policy steals your copyright?

[jlharris]

<p>Facebook's TOS apparently now say that if you upload any material, they own it.</p>

<p>http://mashable.com/2009/02/16/facebook-tos-privacy/</p>

<p>That may be an oversimplification. Thoughts?</p>

<p>Joe</p>

[mac_mcanirlin]

<p>It does say non-exclusive, I would be much more worried if it tried to take exclusive rights.<br>

As far as the stuff remaining on thier forever, that was always the case, atleast now they warn you of that fact. The problem will come when they start (or try) to use any images for thier use, that have been posted. I guess any Photographers should not use facebook as a portfolio space...</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>It's incredibly inexpensive to host your own simple web site. Put your images there, and when you want your Facebook buddies to see them, just provide a link. Facebook is not free... they have to pay the millions of dollars it costs to keep that web site on the air by selling demographic information about its users, etc. Their TOS isn't much different than many other "free" services. But keep in mind that they're not getting your copyrights. They're asserting that you've granted them license to use what <em>you</em> decide to put up on <em>their</em> system, which they are paying to operate, and which you are using only because you want to.</p>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>My argument is this: my wife and I use the same account (which I believe is against the TOS anyway-everyone to have ther own account) - if I put a photo that *I* took and that *I* own the copyright onto my web site and or my computer (ok, OUR computer) and she uses one of my photos on Facebook - how can they take over the ownership of a copyright she never owned nor did she have the legal right to transfer that copyright?</p>

<p>Facebook will get sued for sure if they tried to use someones photo.</p>

[cabbiinc]

<p>Derek: when you upload a photo to Facebook you have to check a box claiming that you are the owner of the copyright for the photo. That in and of itself absolves Fb of any lawsuits in that regard. Not that it makes it right.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Facebook has clear terms on infringing posts. Things don't magically appear there. Someone has to post them; <br>

"By using or accessing the Facebook Service, you represent, warrant and agree that you will not Post:</p>

<ul>

<li>User Content that violates the law or anyone's rights, including intellectual property ("IP") rights or other proprietary rights (such as rights of publicity and privacy);"</li>

</ul>

<p>While they have the biggest checkbook, it doesn't mean that they would be the only one in a conflict over infringing uses. They have procedures for receiving and acting on claims of infringements. I doubt anyone would be successful suing over something that came from the supposedly aggrieved parties own computer.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Derek: Nobody is "taking over copyrights." There's a difference between giving them permission to use material that you add to their web site, and giving up your own copyrights. Just like a commercial photographer can give a client an unlimited license to use an image he's produced while still owning the copyright, the fact that you're adding a photograph (which you, by doing so, are asserting that you have rights to) to the FB web site means that you're granting them a license to use it. <br /><br />This is main concept to get a hold of: it's THEIR web site. You might be using it, but you're doing so under their terms. Period. If you want to add content to their web site, then you do so according to their terms. Nothing sinister about it. It's no different than the fact that the words you've just written in this very thread are now part of the Photo.net web site, and will continue to be part of the web site even if you cancel your account here.</p>

[l_e]

<p>It works like this...<br>

IF the person who uploads the image owns the image then they give Facebook permission to use the image, while it is on their website.<br>

Once you delete the image they can no longer use the image. At least this was the case, and I don't think it has changed.<br>

IF the an image is uploaded by someone other than the copyright owner (or a person who has permission to upload the image) then Facebook clearly does not have permission to use the image. In these cases, when an image owner proves it is their image then Facebook will delete the image from their servers.<br>

If you don't give Facebook at least some permission to use your image then they can not display it on their website (which includes your profile and Facebook albums). So you would upload an image that no one can see.<br>

And YES, Facebook will take an image down if your prove it was uploaded illegally. It is a bit of a hassle though.</p>

[starvy]

<p>why would facebook want to do anything with your image? i think your concern is indeed an oversimplification of the problem.</p>

[justin_greene]

<p>I think your lack of concern is a measure of the worth you place on your content.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p><em>I think your lack of concern is a measure of the worth you place on your content.<br /></em><br />Rather, it's a lack of concern about the value of an image that would be posted at a rational resolution on a third party's free web site in accordance with their TOS. In other words: of course it's not worth worrying about - because nobody would put valuable, high-resolution images up there in the first place.... right? The person who doesn't much value their own work is the person who uses a place like Facebook to store and exhibit it in the first place.</p>

[tracy_king1]

<p>I agree with a few members here. while this might be a crappy deal that they have their TOS to do so it is their terms of service on their site that you have the CHOICE on if you agree to those terms.<br>

they aren't forcing you to give them a license to use your content as they wish, if you wish to join their site you are agreeing to let them use it how they want. if you don't want them to use your content as such then don't join.<br>

here is a question if a client you just shot for wants to have a license that would allow them to use the image however they please including allowing others to use that license at no additional charge would you still agree to shoot them? </p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>There was a big big hooplah a few years ago when the same kind of language showed up in the Myspace terms of service. Many of us waited sitting on our fingers to see ourselves on television and billboards, but it never happened. Basically, I think the purpose has to do with being able to use your images for various promotional peices WITHIN the site... such as "cool new members" where the Myspace main splash page displays images of members (typically people who are very attractive) as a way to entice people into the site. The confusion with the wording comes from the fact that people don't see this as advertising because it's a very clever form of advertising. It's sorta like those ads on TV where they talk about the people who use a product without every talking about the product, to give it credibility without blatantly selling the product itself. So yes, your images will be used by this service in advertisements... but it's very likely you won't even notice that they are advertisements because it will be YOU they will appear to be selling.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>And as an addendum... as such, they are probably not interesting in art photography or even professional quality modeling photography. The images of yours they want are the ones taken with poopy little digital cameras, from weird angles, probably in a bathroom mirror, and with you caring WAYYYY too much about your hair and makeup for a weird photo taken in a bathroom mirror with a poopy little camera that appears in the reflection, probably along with it's flash.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Since the highest resolution that can be prosted to Facebook is a mere 604 pixels wide, what is the worry about? Nothing. Facebook is an excellent communication tool.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p><a href="http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/02/q-can-facebook-use-my-photos-of-people.html">http://www.photoattorney.com/2009/02/q-can-facebook-use-my-photos-of-people.html</a></p>

<p>food for thought</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>I think it is for use with adjacent companies. Like, companies may have agreements with each other, or both be owned by a parent company. For example, I don't use Facebook, but I ran across a similar agreement with YouTube the other day.</p>

<p>I go over to YouTube, and upload my little video. I wanted to put it on my own web page, but the video file was big. So, I thought, let's use the YouTube. They have lots of memory, and are real good at streaming the videos. So, I did. Clicked on the agreement, uploaded my video; no problem.</p>

<p>YouTube has got one of these tracking function deals. So, when you upload a video, you can click around and see some stuff about how people got there to watch it. You have no idea who watched your video, but you can get a little information about how they got there to see it. Things like, 5 people searched and found your stuff; others arrived by clicking on a link; still others, we have no idea how they got there.</p>

<p>My video was about loading film in a canister. Considering the lack of comedy and gratuitous sexual content, probably not going to be a popular video. Within a day, two dozen people had watched it. Curious, I clicked over these stats to see who on earth is seeing this stuff. Turns out some of the hits were from this AOL video site. I never put my video over there. Next day, still more people had watched my video; another two dozen. I'm so unfriendly, I don't know four dozen people who would oblige me by watching my video. So, who are these other two dozen people? Turns out there was another video site routing traffic over to my movie. Google. Google has a video site.</p>

<p>Now, Google, AOL and YouTube all have deals with each other. I don't know about their business, but one can see there are cross-references in there. So, I think these kinds of agreements are so that companies can share content with one another.</p>

<p>Okay, now, they're probably not going to pirate my film loading video for sexy lingerie ads in Japan or anything. But, the wider they cast their net, the more people they'll get. The more people they'll get, the more likely their actual revenue-generating deals are plausibly likely to perhaps generate two cents of revenue.</p>

<p>So, I think it's like that. I doubt it's a Big Brother deal. It's not even a Corporate Greed thing. It's a recruitment plan to trade off electronic memory for other customers. Like me? Okay, I'm not a desirable customer for a lot of stuff; but, point being, if you are interested in it; someone else might be; if someone else might be, then let's get them over to the Hosting Company's site; since people, while often single-minded, have varied interests; the guy who dragged himself over to YouTube to watch my film loading movie might need to be sold some Super Bowl Potato Chips or something.</p>

<p>By bringing your friends over, you are bringing your friends over to see their ads. Voila! Moolah. I think that's what it is. They've got to make their money somehow. My video is taking up space in their memory banks.</p>

<p>In order for them to recruit more viewers for the ads, they have to have enough reproduction rights to put the video on someone else's computer. Internet businesses are going to want as much content as they can get; even if you don't want it anymore; solely because more content means a wider spreader of possible interests that might hook somebody, which means more somebodies to see the ads; more moolah. They are farming money by recruiting ad viewers. Thus, they need enough copyright power to reproduce the content and publish onto someone else's monitor. Moolah.</p>

<p>http://www.agxphoto.info/agxphoto.info/agxphoto.info_photoBlog_featured_entries/Entries/2009/2/16_Hand_Loading_Bulk_Film_Into_35mm_Cassettes_with_a_Changing_Bag.html You knew a shameless plug was coming.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>For the guy who was concerned about getting the copyright stolen through distributing a reproduction, it happens with books all the time. In fact, I was putting together a bibliography for my web page (here it comes). Even books twenty five years old and older had such copyrights within copyrights. There needs to be some of that just to get a book jacket dust cover or softcover with excerpted images on it to get people to buy the book. For an example of books with copyrights for the main content and also copyrights for the printing of the book itself . . .<br>

http://www.agxphoto.info/agxphoto.info/Bibliography.html</p>