Comments on: Facebook Claims Right to Create Derivative Works from Members’ Photos

By: Charlie Morey

Charlie Morey — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 15:53:24 +0000

Interesting linkage of factoids, but is there any evidence of Facebook actually using our photos for anything (aside from displaying them on our pages and those of our friends)?

By: Erika

Erika — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 00:35:29 +0000

Would anyone know if this applies to tagged photo's too, ie, if a photo I own is tagged, therefore it appears in a friends' FB account, but say they haven't changed their selection re.FB ADS, even though I've changed it in my FB account; can FB still use that photo then? A message is being passed around my friends "To ALL FRIENDS. Please pass this around! Facebook has agreed to let a third party advertiser use your posted pictures without your permission. Click on SETTINGS up at the top where you see the log out link. Select PRIVACY - MANAGE. Select NEWS FEEDS AND WALL. Select the tab that reads FACE BOOK ADS. There is a drop down box, select NO ONE." I haven't found anything on the web as yet stating that FB have a 3rd party advertiser, but at least this making us aware that our photo's & video's are available to them should they wish to use the unless we change the setting in our account.

By: dana richardson

dana richardson — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:57:35 +0000

there are new developments in this area as of today...

http://apps.facebook.com/fbsitevote/contests/208?_fb_fromhash=87f77acaecd393b667de8bf3ac65e6f7
......

three times in the last month i have written notes to the editors of major Canadian Daily newspapers complaining about the use of facebook as a photo service...
......

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:33:21 +0000

As a divorcee, do I have any right to stop my ex-wife putting photos of my kids on facebook?

By: Embassy Pro books

Embassy Pro books — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:25:16 +0000

Facebook could easily launch a whole new business from this. I wonder if they will ever try it?

By: Renae

Renae — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 05:47:24 +0000

So, to get around this legal matter, only upload photos that have been resized for the web and at a very low resolution.

72 dpi is sufficient for good quality on the web and a 600 x 400 pixel size won't really be good for anything. Even smaller would be better for us. Most of my photos are a whopping 25 to 50 KB in size. Not good enough for anything but web viewing.

I don't think that there will be much altering, reproducing or selling of my photos from Facebook or Flickr. Not without asking me for the original 2 MB file, which they won't get without paying me first.

By: A. Soto

A. Soto — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:53:57 +0000

And of course, they are not the only company doing such a thing. After a short period using Zooomr I decided to read the terms of service and you can find exactly the same paragraph, word by word, in those. Though it continues telling that if you remove the pictures from the web, the licence will automatically expire, so I did it.

Good luck to all those poor zooomr users if the company decide to open a little stock brother one.

By: P Salisbury

P Salisbury — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:55:12 +0000

As a professional photographer, I find this kind of behaviour by companies like Facebook to be nothing more than legalised theft. They know exactly what they are doing when they phrase their terms and conditions. In a world where intellectual property rights are being taken more seriously, they should know better. It seems these companies are only there for their own benefit, and don't really care about the customers they depend on. Surely it's time for some sort of ethical shake-up.

By: StMarc

StMarc — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:46:08 +0000

Mr. Sawchak is right that in most US jurisdictions, some kind of release is required for many kinds of image exploitation. However, at least for pictures of the Facebook user themselves, a strong argument could be made that the ToS comprises not only an unlimited copyright license, but a likeness release. It wouldn't apply to the other people in the photo, but there's a catch... if Facebook uses the photo and is sued for failure to obtain likeness rights, they might be able to subrogate their liability to the Facebook user, because they warranted that Facebook could do whatever they wanted with the image! That's a long stretch, and I don't know of any court decisions which go that far, but logically it makes perfect sense. If a photographer submitted to a "real" stock site and claimed the images were clear for any use, but didn't have releases, clients would quite reasonably be peeved if it turned out there were no likeness rights releases. M

By: David Sawchak

David Sawchak — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:34:14 +0000

For any photo with a recognizable person, I believe a release signed by the model is required for commercial endorsement-type use, and for anyone under 18 (or who looks like they might be) I'm almost positive one is required. This seems like it would severely hinder Facebook's use of photos consisting people's faces. However I, like several other photographers, post a few shots without people on Facebook. I suppose I'll have to start watermarking them.

By: Ads

Ads — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:23:04 +0000

zach are you kidding me, most uses on the web are at spot resolution.

By: Ed O'Keeffe

Ed O'Keeffe — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:52:27 +0000

There was a facebook group about this, I have photos of myself on the website but none of my professional photography. Flickr is OK right?

By: zach

zach — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:47:16 +0000

Considering the resolution of facebook photos, I can't see anyone making much money out of them.

By: liz

liz — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:35:29 +0000

I have literally thousands of photos on my pbase site of local high school kids, mostly sports action and some from dances. I make them available because I enjoy taking them and the kids and coaches love them. I have chosen not to market the sports action shots because the amount of time and effort involved in selling them is not worth the limited amount of money I have been able to make. These pictures are all over facebook as well as scans of senior portraits that I have taken professionally. I have never given anyone permission to put these photos on facebook although I know they are on there and the kids know that I know they are on there (my own kids included). It looks like these mostly under-eighteen kids have agreed that they are legally able to post these photos, even though they are not. I am not too worried about facebook using my photos for any purpose, but I wonder what kind of action I would be able to take if they did.