By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
Facebook are headed for a legal apocalypse. Just as an example, there’s a whole bunch of Nachtwey material on there, and I’m pretty sure it’s not with the consent of VII.
So their strategy is to pull this kind of stunt.
I know quite a few LSers on facebook who post their “personal” pics. I do it myself for that matter. Any lawyers have an opinion?
exactly john.just because facebook claim rights does not mean the rights are neccassarily theirs to claim.
there is an awful lot of work posted on facebook by people who don’t own the rights to the work.for facebook to try and do anything with this material(for instance,sell the work on,or build their own library) would be more trouble than it is worth.they would have to check the provenance of every image,or publish anyway,weather the law-suits,or start counter-suing their own members,which would be counter-productive.
this is why I took off any work awhile ago. I still have some personal stuff, just for fun etc … but yeah. There are a lot of companies these days trying to claim ownership of things completely undeserved, luckily I am seeing a growing trend of artists getting increasingly wary of their legal rights and what they mean. But more education still wouldn’t hurt, because the amount of violations still going around is upsetting.
Nasty! Kind of funny that one of the words they use in the rights-grab is “fully paid.” It’s perplexing to me that on the one hand the license is “irrevocable” but on the other hand if you remove the content the license “will automatically expire.” Must be some legalese distinction between revocation and expiration…
Yep, most of the ‘free’ social networking sites have such a clause. Multiply does this, also. It’s a very good idea to be VERY careful about where you post your content online – a general rule of thumb is that if they’re providing you with ‘free’ webspace your copyright over any posted content is under threat, as they have to make their dosh from somewhere.
Bit worrying, especially as the International Photojournalists Network is currently using Facebook until it sets up it’s own site with archiving and distribution facilities. I wonder if this also applies to Flickr?
Same thing applies to flickr. What were you thinking? Otherwise the whole web hosting industry would not actually exist. I have though found some individuals hosting on flickr whole archives of my work as well as AP and AFP material. I contacted them and have had no response. The facts are (even if your a american) that there is very little one can do about people using images on the net and those that pay for copyrighted web hosted sites should ask themselves …why? personnel peace of mind, How sweet!
Looks like Yahoo’s terms of service (which govern flickr) are quite a bit more agreeable, though they take the right to use the photos in promotion of the flickr.
The text (at http://www.flickr.com/terms.gne is: “Yahoo! does not claim ownership of Content you submit or make available for inclusion on the Service. However, with respect to Content you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service, you grant Yahoo! the following worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s), as applicable:
1.
2.
3.
With respect to Content other than photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the perpetual, irrevocable and fully sublicensable license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content (in whole or in part) and to incorporate such Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed.
“Publicly accessible” areas of the Service are those areas of the Yahoo! network of properties that are intended by Yahoo! to be available to the general public. By way of example, publicly accessible areas of the Service would include Yahoo! Message Boards and portions of Yahoo! Groups, Photos and Briefcase that are open to both members and visitors. However, publicly accessible areas of the Service would not include portions of Yahoo! Groups that are limited to members, Yahoo! services intended for private communication such as Yahoo! Mail or Yahoo! Messenger, or areas off of the Yahoo! network of properties such as portions of World Wide Web sites that are accessible via hypertext or other links but are not hosted or served by Yahoo!.”
If memory serves me right, Google’s Picasa, another such service, has a rights grab for publicly viewable photos, as well. I can’t find the link to that right now. Bottom line, read the terms and conditions of anywhere you put your photos.
Mmm it seems reading between the lines is not ‘your thing’ The points is as long as other citizens of the web can copy …drag and drop’ and post images on sites like facebook and flickr using acronyms… you have no control.
We’re talking about something else here, Anton. The facebook terms (and to an extent flickr and others perhaps) grant license to use photos perpetually and without compensation. I guess we’re both talking about theft, but in this case the discussion is legally-granted theft through nefarious terms and conditions. What you describe is currently being discussed in another discussion (http://www.lightstalkers.org/establishing-photo-business-through-web ) and constitutes outright theft that could theoretically be pursued in a court of law.
in my case I use it a lot for personal stuff (family and others) and all the Work I posted have WATER MARKS of Copyrights, those that makes a difference?
I just remove all my work from it, it’s better to be save than sorry, right?
p.s.> there are lot’s pf groups dedicated to photojournalism in facebook and “tribute” groups to many big legends and photographers, what about that?
by
Tito Herrera
|
22 Oct 2007 17:10
(ed. Oct 22 2007)
| Panama City,
Panama
|
Has anyone here ever been harmed by one of these rights grabs? That is, have you ever lost a sale because you could not offer a client an exclusive license on the image because a company like Facebook has claimed a non-exclusive? Not that any of us would ever post photos to a site that grabbed rights . . . but since such grabs are ubiquitous, it’s bound to happen.
What’s really behind a rights grab? Why do the lawyers draw these things up? There’s just no way any of the images posted on Facebook are ever going to have commercial value for Facebook. Are such companies just hedging their bets against future incarnations of their sites, or is there something I am missing?
As for those tribute groups on FB, the agreement states that you have to have the copyright yourself in order to post the image, so unless James Nachtwey is sticking his own pictures up there, he doesn’t have to worry about Facebook claiming rights on them.
“There’s just no way any of the images posted on Facebook are ever going to have commercial value for Facebook”
Im very surprised by naiveness of this comment.
Images posted on these sites become “content” these sites are owned by Yahoo and Google, etc., there is advertising on it, which they get huge amount of revenues.
One of my projects (comfort women) ends up on these blogs all the time, and the images has been used in ads by different groups, etc, all without permission.
I do send email when I come across it, but once you have an image on these sites its very difficult to get it removed, and once posted, its easy for others to use it as they please. On a personal note, it really frustrates me, some of my work that I have risked my life, or spent my own money to do the work, are used so carelessly by others.
These sites can also do more to educate posters/blogger about respecting copyrighted work, but they dont because its in their interest to keep the content and popularity. Copyright law has not been tested on these photo sharing site, interesting to see what happens with Google (Youtube) vs Viacome.
If you want to talk about someone’s work, you can post links to photographers site, but to actually pull images is, i believe, copyright infringement. And i doubt Jim Nachtwey posts his pictures.
One big reason is…there are art directors, interest groups, and others who scour these sites looking for royalty free images.
As i mentioned in my previous post, once posted on these sites (by others even as innocently it may be) its impossible to remove, pretty much in public domain. Once an image is posted, its like domino effect, anyone can use it.
Images, chatterbox,traffice, memberships are all a part of CONTENT.
kim, you are wrong.they can only use it if you post it.if somebody else posts your image,and it is used without permission,your rights apply.it doesn’t matter whether facebook claim it as theirs,they can’t claim rights to an image somebody else has stolen off you.
Preston, interesting example, i think the key flaw in yours arguement is that the women agree to be the “content”. No third party tossed their name in on their behalf without knowing.
Michael, I mostly email them asking them to take it down. Difficult to find address or owners name to send an invoice.
And Im addressing the danger of having your image posted on Facebook and Flickr for photographers who own their copyright. As I said, its really difficult to remove your image once posted by a third party ( having tried with Flickr, other photogs have tried as well with no success so far). I do think these sites encourage theft (photographs). I hope these discussions educate all of us.
kim,i don’t know kuch about flickr,and i have never looked at facebook in my life,but do they really refuse to remove stolen work? what reasons,if any,do they give for such a refusal?
I have never looked at facebook either until yesterday, and saw my CW images there. They dont refuse. They say they honor the Digital Milenimum Copyright Act (DMCA). but they dont, they stone wall. My agency has also written them a letter as well. They do have a long list of burden of proof and documentation process. On Flickr there’s lots of photographers work, Magnum, Contact, Salgado, Its all posted.
I would be interested if anyone had success having their image removed?
With google I got this with on one of their sites.
To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a written communication (by fax or regular mail, not by email) that sets forth the items specified below. Please note that pursuant to that Act, you may be liable to the alleged infringer for damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) if you materially misrepresent that you own an item when you in fact do not. Indeed, in a recent case (please see http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/ for more information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine was ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees. The company agreed to pay over $100,000. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material available online infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.
Preston, I think that generally you’re right in wondering why the sites grab rights of essentially worthless pictures. However, I also think there’s a strong possibility that the license could be exercised in the future. Ever see those classmates.com ads that showed a bunch of old yearbook photos and said something like “remember when you looked like this? connect with other classmates now!” I could imagine Facebook starting a similar ad campaign with party photos (or whatever) saying something like “And you think you had a crazy weekend? See what your friends have been up to with Facebook photos!” Just because it doesn’t happen now, and facebook seems innocuous and good, doesn’t mean it could happen tomorrow or next week or whenever facebook decides to sell. Myspace, for instance, didn’t seem so awful for a while, but now Rupert Murdoch owns it. Who’s to say where photos you put up on Facebook would get used were Murdoch in charge….
I suggest we set up a FB group denouncing the practice in FB and similar websites. I think it could draw some attention…and surely upset them, if just a little. Also, if we send it around I am sure people will join in thousands..
I’d join such a group if someone started it. Not very impressed.
A friend recently drew my attention to this issue, quite confused after reading the passage that states: “You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.”
The quality of the images on Facebook isn’t great, I don’t know if they apply some sort of compression to the files. Certainly I would have thought that these wouldn’t have a great commercial value? I do wonder if the file you upload (higher quality) is the image they keep.
For those having problems with Flickr, http://www.flickr.com/report_abuse.gne Select “Someone is posting photos that I have taken to their Flickr account” and follow format for the email mentioned there.
Having gone through it twice, I can say that the Yahoo legal team are quite swift and will close down offender’s accounts quite quickly.
News today has it that microsoft now has a small stake in Facebook. No disclosure yet on what that means in terms of facebook’s assets, but perhaps this is the place for a reminder that Bill Gates wholly owns Corbis…
I posted some photos to FB but now want to remove them. It seems I have been successful but how do I make sure that my photos are gone from FB and not just hidden so that I cant see them. And how does this rights grab apply to photos that arent posted on FB but linked to slaideshows on Flickr? Does FB still try to take the rights to them?
I have photos on both FB and Flickr and this discussion is making me want to remove everything. Thanks for the information. I guess it’s time to make a real professional photo website.
Faced with its second mass protest by members in its short life span, Facebook, the enormously popular social networking Web site, is reining in some aspects of a controversial new advertising program. Within the last 10 days, more than 50,000 Facebook members have signed a petition objecting to the new program, which sends messages to users’ friends about what they are buying on Web sites like Travelocity.com, TheKnot.com and Fandango. The members want to be able to opt out of the program completely with one click, but Facebook won’t let them. Late yesterday the company made an important change, saying that it would not send messages about users’ Internet activities without getting explicit approval each time.
I haven’t read the small print, and have assumed it must be safe seeing as how many tech savvy people and pro photogs use it, but what, if anything, stops images posted right here on Lightstalkers from being downloaded?
That is truly sad to see our images abused like that. Assuming most of us out there are either ignorant to that fact or don’t care. Obviously we should care more. I’ve seen some of my images that are on Corbis scattered on flkr. After hearing about facebooks “autogrant,” , I noticed a few people taking their images down.I don’t have any online except my profile pic.
Ford: Car owners are pirates if they distribute pictures of their own cars POSTED BY CORY DOCTOROW, JANUARY 13, 2008 10:11 PM | PERMALINK Josh sez, “The folks at BMC (Black Mustang Club) automotive forum wanted to put together a calendar featuring members’ cars, and print it through CafePress. Photos were submitted, the layout was set, and… CafePress notifies the site admin that pictures of Ford cars cannot be printed. Not just Ford logos, not just Mustang logos, the car as a whole is a Ford trademark and its image can’t be reproduced without permission. So even though Ford has a lineup of enthusiasts who want to show off their Ford cars, the company is bent on alienating them. ‘Them’ being some of the most loyal owners and future buyers that they have. Or rather, that they had, because many have decided that they will not be doing business with Ford again if this matter isn’t resolved.”
I got some more info from the folks at cafepress and according to them, a law firm representing Ford contacted them saying that our calendar pics (and our club’s event logos – anything with one of our cars in it) infringes on Ford’s trademarks which include the use of images of THEIR vehicles. Also, Ford claims that all the images, logos and designs OUR graphics team made for the BMC events using Danni are theirs as well. Funny, I thought Danni’s title had my name on it … and I thought you guys owned your cars … and, well … I’m not even going to get into how wrong and unfair I feel this whole thing is as I’d be typing for hours, but I wholeheartedly echo everything you guys have been saying all afternoon. I’m not letting this go un-addressed and I’ll keep you guys posted as I get to work on this. I’m sorry, but at this point we will not be producing the 2008 BMC Calendar, featuring our 2007 Members of the Month, solely due to Ford Motor Company’s claim that THEY own all rights to the photos YOU take of YOUR car. I hope to resolve this soon, and be able to provide the calendar and other BMC merchandise that you guys want and deserve! This thread will remain open for you to comment however you wish, and I’ll update it as needed.
Facebook is total bollocks, apart from getting seed funding from a CIA front company looking for ‘total informatiojn awareness’ applications, its also robbing photographers:
Regrading the question about Flickr earlier in this thread. I recently took all my material off Flickr after finding multiple rights violations. Granted, most of these were simply bloggers and they all totally misunderstood the whole concept of copyright. I think they all read the creative commons licence and made the deduction that it applies to all images on flickr. They all took down the images upon request with apologies I now only use flickr for a few things when i have n choice and will not renew my payment to the pro account. I think that if you want to retain control of your images, then you simply have to accept that you cannot post to these sites under the current technological conditions even if it those very conditions that help us with our businesses.
Whether or not facebook can make anything out of grabbing our images off their sight or not, however small they be online, the point is they think it’s ok. And that just slowly makes the younger generation start thinking that this behavior is standard business and is okay. It’s NOT. On my facebook page, which I may be taking down soon anyway, is my profile picture. There is too much on there anyway that does absolutely nothing. It’s practically pointless.
Amid all the controversy over their Beacon system in November, Facebook also announced “Social Ads” which put your picture and name in a company’s ad. This is one of the reasons why they want the rights grab. http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/01/facebook-ads-ma.html
Facebook has never been in the business of using your images, at least not in the way you’d assume. Its function is to aggregate people, not content. The content is the lure, the bait. Facebook is an ongoing mega-database of personal information which is used to procure targeted advertising. This is the way that most social networks operate – including Flickr, YouTube, MySpace etc.
Whatever content you place on these sites is simply increasing the networks attractiveness to more members. Of course you won’t see a penny of the advertising money, your content will be ripped off and passed around by the members, and is a total pain in the arse to remove.
Facebooks other function is to provide vast amounts of cross-referenced personal info on all its members, which (as its T&C’s clearly state) can then be presented if it wishes, to government entities. Apparently the seed capital that first bankrolled Facebook can be traced (admittedly tangentally) to the US Govt’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which was looking for applications dealing in blanket passive surveillance and ‘total information awareness’.
I’ve never been able to fathom the fascination with Facebook. Its a virtual barcode tattoo on your neck (ever wondered why ‘Tom’ is a friend of ALL members?), and bizarrely enough, people who would refuse on principle to carry an ID card, are quite happy to willingly spill their guts online, to a sinister bunch of geeks and spooks.
I’d join such a group if someone started it. Not very impressed. A friend recently drew my attention to this issue, quite confused after reading the passage that states: “You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.”
The quality of the images on Facebook isn’t great, I don’t know if they apply some sort of compression to the files. Certainly I would have thought that these wouldn’t have a great commercial value? I do wonder if the file you upload (higher quality) is the image they keep.
For those having problems with Flickr, http://www.flickr.com/report_abuse.gne Select “Someone is posting photos that I have taken to their Flickr account” and follow format for the email mentioned there.
Having gone through it twice, I can say that the Yahoo legal team are quite swift and will close down offender’s accounts quite quickly.
by Matt Cetti-Roberts 23 Oct 2007 | Norfolk,United Kingdom
Matt,
Can you send me a copy of the letter you sent to Yahoo to have your images removed? You can send it privately. I keep getting emails saying Yahoo honors DCMA but i have not provided their requirements. I have sent them a written letter with contact sheet with my image clearly circled, snap shot of the web page where my image is posted, and I state that it was in good faith that I ask Yahoo to take it down… where the image was taken from etc., and they keep coming back with emails saying I am not meeting their requirements.
Has anyone else had success in getting their images removed on Flickr posted by a third party?
via RSS
via email
