Copyright infrindgment Facebook

[kestral]

Some of my photographs are posted on Facebook without my permission they are all marked up copyright.Facebook appear to have a complaints procedure for copyright infringement has anyone used it? if so any success?

 

[MWHCVT]

Never used it but I hear facebook are very good at taking down images

 

[KIPAX]

Some of my photographs are posted on Facebook without my permission they are all marked up copyright.Facebook appear to have a complaints procedure for copyright infringement has anyone used it? if so any success?

always removed pics same day for me..

then i gave up complaining as they where going on faster than i could get them took down

 

[kestral]

always removed pics same day for me..

then i gave up complaining as they where going on faster than i could get them took down

Do I need to be a member of Facebook to have them removed?

 

[KIPAX]

Do I need to be a member of Facebook to have them removed?

No idea...

 

[HMansfield]

Theoretically not, as it would be pretty arrogant to assume that everyone has FB membership.

However....

But as the others have said, FB are quick to act on copyright claims. Supposedly they have so many to deal with, their policy is to delete and deal with the few that challenge it, rather than get drawn into asking the claimant to prove it's theirs.

 

[KIPAX]

You have to show some sort of proof that they are yours.. Mine has my website accross the middle and I give them the urls to the ones on my website... the fact that my email and domain are both kipax.com presumably shows its me

 

[Southdowns]

I have pictures on Flickr all marked all rights reserved but not watermarked. Family have taken some of those and posted them on Facebook with no copyright statement or credit at all. I'm not a pro and the images in question would be unlikely ever to sell.

I don't mind what my images are used for personally (especially by family), so long as no-one's making money out of them, but I'm aware that's unhelpful to pro's, and also that as soon as one of my pics is posted on Facebook, it's lost all the copyright notices etc that are on Flickr.

Should I be objecting to this, and if so what should I be asking family to do? I don't really want to add watermarks because they spoil the images and look a bit pretentious when I'm only a newbie amateur, but maybe that's part of the solution?

Does Facebook even have any mechanism for adding copyright notices etc? Does EXIF data help in any way?

 

[KIPAX]

I don't mind what my images are used for personally (especially by family), so long as no-one's making money out of them, but I'm aware that's unhelpful to pro's, and also that as soon as one of my pics is posted on Facebook, it's lost all the copyright notices etc that are on Flickr.

How is it unhelpful to PROS? They are your pics.. family and friends..

If you go to a horse event and there are pros trying to make a living from selling pics and you flood flikr and facebook with non watermarked pics then that effects the pros... i really cant see how your current situation could..

 

[Southdowns]

Well, that's what I keep seeing on here

They aren't all pictures of family and friends. Some are just "nice" pictures that could, conceivably, be used in place of a paid for alternative from a pro. For example there was a thread recently where someone asked for free landscapes for a web site. He was flamed to hell and back for not wanting to pay (he'd intended his request for amateurs, but it wasn't seen that way), yet I have plenty of landscapes on Flickr, and he could easily have taken one of those. If pros object to people asking for free images from amateurs, presumably they also object to amateurs making images available for nothing?

Also, I did say "provided no-one's making money from them". If they get re-posted minus the copyright notice I put on Flickr, how would I ever defend an abuse of that if someone subsequently "nicks" them from Facebook?

I don't know. I just keep seeing objections on here to people giving photo's away, even if they never intended to sell them, so want to do the "right thing".

 

[KIPAX]

I don't know. I just keep seeing objections on here to people giving photo's away, even if they never intended to sell them, so want to do the "right thing".

the right thing is what you want to do.. dont let other dictate.. theres a thin line... your pics your choice... if you know you are going to directly impact on someones living then you may think.. stop! indeed i would hope you think that... but you cant hide your pictures away or worry when you do show them in case they are copied and used...

you ahve taken precautions.. dont worry about it.. your not actively trying to hurt anyone...

let me try to clear this up

if someone is looking for a picture of a footballer and they see one on my site for a tenner and one on your site for free and they choose you.. that effects me.. but it also effects you as you miss out.. theres nothing i can do about that ...its just the way it is.. I wont complain..

however...

you turn up at a event i am at and start taking pictures to then give away for free... thats what the pros will object to.. because your actively going to effect there living.. your going out of your way to effect them.. i would complain then


theres a difference..


some people on TP are a little anal about pictures and think every pic must be paid for.. well if being used commercialy then yes.. but nbt really in yours or many more peoples situations..


nobody ever said photography is a business only... its a hobby as well.. and showing pictures is a big part of that hobby... but if a national newspaper comes along and wants a pic.. sell it them! dont give it...


dont know if explaining very well.. but its not a blanket catch all dont give pics away... theres a line i wouldnt worry about it to be honest

 

[Southdowns]

Yep, I think that's what common sense says, but it isn't the way a lot of pros on here seem to see it. To them ANY picture used for free, except amongst family and friends, is a picture that someone else could have sold.

I guess my question was more; yes its my choice, and the choice I've made is "all rights reserved", so that I get to decide whether it's free or not when someone wants to use it. But if someone takes one of my photo's and puts it on Facebook, which is a perfectly reasonable thing for family to do, which I'd like to allow, I've lost that choice because Facebook has no copyright notice as far as I can see.

OK so the issue is how to keep a copyright notice present wherever a photo goes, so I at least have a chance of enforcing it if that national paper ever does pick up on it. I'm guessing that the best I can do, if I don't want to watermark my shots, is to update the IPTC data when I import from my camera, though I don't know what I'd update it too. I'll post separately on that.

 

[PaulF]

Does Facebook even have any mechanism for adding copyright notices etc? Does EXIF data help in any way?

I've noticed that when my wife puts some of my images on her Facebook profile the have 'Copyright Paul Fanning' above them so Facebook must be reading the exif somewhere.

Paul.

 

[KIPAX]

OK so the issue is how to keep a copyright notice present wherever a photo goes, so I at least have a chance of enforcing it if that national paper ever does pick up on it. I'm guessing that the best I can do, if I don't want to watermark my shots, is to update the IPTC data when I import from my camera, though I don't know what I'd update it too. I'll post separately on that.

For business such as newspapers the IPTC should suffice.. however facebook and other places that use there own software to upload pictures tend to rip all that info out..


Any other protection would be an ugly watermark accross the picture which I guess you dont want..

If a pic is copied from your website it can end up being used commercialy without you knowing... you can take steps such as all info in IPTC but that can be lost when uplaoding to FB ...

its just one of those things.. you cant keep track of them all the time I am afraid.,.,

 

[KIPAX]

I've noticed that when my wife puts some of my images on her Facebook profile the have 'Copyright Paul Fanning' above them so Facebook must be reading the exif somewhere.

Paul.

yes when people nick mine.. sometimes all the copyright stuff shows in facebook.. but the person uploading just has to click edit and remove the info

 

[Southdowns]

OK thanks. I think updating the IPTC is about as far as I want to go, so I'll post a separate thread about what to update it to, so as not to hijack this one too much!

 

[jerry12953]

Well, that's what I keep seeing on here

They aren't all pictures of family and friends. Some are just "nice" pictures that could, conceivably, be used in place of a paid for alternative from a pro. For example there was a thread recently where someone asked for free landscapes for a web site. He was flamed to hell and back for not wanting to pay (he'd intended his request for amateurs, but it wasn't seen that way), yet I have plenty of landscapes on Flickr, and he could easily have taken one of those. If pros object to people asking for free images from amateurs, presumably they also object to amateurs making images available for nothing?

Also, I did say "provided no-one's making money from them". If they get re-posted minus the copyright notice I put on Flickr, how would I ever defend an abuse of that if someone subsequently "nicks" them from Facebook?

I don't know. I just keep seeing objections on here to people giving photo's away, even if they never intended to sell them, so want to do the "right thing".

Southdowns,

You're doing exactly the right thing with respect to copyright and pro photographers. Thank you very much. It is a massive problem for us.

Kipax,

Why muddy the waters? No-one is dictating here but you. The OP and Southdowns both appear to have a good understanding and responsible attitude about copyright and giving images away and you try to persuade them otherwise! Any picture given away to a commercial organisation is one that they COULD have paid for.

Edit: I can't help re: facebook, sorry.

 

[KIPAX]

Kipax,

Why muddy the waters? No-one is dictating here but you.

eh? where am I dictating?

The OP and Southdowns both appear to have a good understanding and responsible attitude about copyright and giving images away and you try to persuade them otherwise!

eh? again eh? where am i persuading them to give images away?

Any picture given away to a commercial organisation is one that they COULD have paid for.

I know.. thats what i said.. quite a few times... I think your having a funny turn mate?

 

[jerry12953]

the right thing is what you want to do.. dont let other dictate.. theres a thin line... your pics your choice...

some people on TP are a little anal about pictures and think every pic must be paid for.. well if being used commercialy then yes.. but nbt really in yours or many more peoples situations..

dont know if explaining very well.. but its not a blanket catch all dont give pics away... theres a line i wouldnt worry about it to be honest

Like I said, both the OP and Southdowns are aware that posting pictures without permission on websites is a problem and the cause for further problems for pro photographers. Both are asking for advice.

I suggest that your advice is not good advice for them or anyone. Your own business model is not the only one around and giving pictures away affects pros in ways that you probably can't imagine. I agree that giving pics away to family is completely acceptable but as southdowns says not all his pics are family. I would suggest in particular that Southdowns speaks to the family members that have posted his pictures without permission and explain to them about the problems that photographers face over people thieving pictures and ask if they or he could take them down, although not being on facebook i've no idea of the procedure.

I may have over-reacted but I stick by my sentiments.

I would end by once again thanking both the OP and Southdowns for their concern for the future of professional photography.

 

[KIPAX]

----8<-----

selective quoting to try and make out i said something i didnt.., what a cowerdly way to act on a forum

why didnt you quote the bit where i said exact same as you about adding IPTC so business cant use wihtout paying.. or the bit where i wrote if a paper wants a pic sell it dont give it.. or the bit about not hurting pro photographers and how you should assess and hopefully decide not to..


its all in this thread but you decide to selective quote .. if you ahvent got anything to attack me wiht dont twist stuff round to make it look different

 

[jerry12953]

selective quoting to try and make out i said something i didnt.., what a cowerdly way to act on a forum

why didnt you quote the bit where i said exact same as you about adding IPTC so business cant use wihtout paying.. or the bit where i wrote if a paper wants a pic sell it dont give it.. or the bit about not hurting pro photographers and how you should assess and hopefully decide not to..


its all in this thread but you decide to selective quote .. if you ahvent got anything to attack me wiht dont twist stuff round to make it look different

I selected those quotes because they appeared amongst the decent stuff you said and badly muddied the waters for people who are trying to do the right thing.

 

[KIPAX]

I selected those quotes because they appeared amongst the decent stuff you said and badly muddied the waters for people who are trying to do the right thing.

and that would be fair enough if it was all i wrote.. but taken as is.. not as answers to questions and not wiht the other bits they read totally the opposite of what i did say... its easy to selective quote anyone on TP and make it look like they meant somehting different..

totally out of order

 

[DerekL]

Far I am concerned if I take the picture it belongs to me. So I can do with it what ever I want to. This should be of no concern to anyone else.

 

[Steve64]

Would you guys peruse a copyright infringement no matter what the circumstances? ie. If someone was using it for financial gain, I get that of course. But what about if say a 12 year old copied a picture, posted it on their FB profile and said something like - Look at this amazing picture of Wayne Rooney's goal.

Is it a case of knowing where to draw the line, or does peoples arrogance / ignorance in this matter really get you angry?

 

[neil_g]

Would you guys peruse a copyright infringement no matter what the circumstances? ie. If someone was using it for financial gain, I get that of course. But what about if say a 12 year old copied a picture, posted it on their FB profile and said something like - Look at this amazing picture of Wayne Rooney's goal.

Is it a case of knowing where to draw the line, or does peoples arrogance / ignorance in this matter really get you angry?

like 12 year olds (and indeed their parents) doing screen grabs of your photos of them at a competition you were covering and putting them on facebook rather than paying for them?

or is that not what youre getting at?

 

[Southdowns]

like 12 year olds (and indeed their parents) doing screen grabs of your photos of them at a competition you were covering and putting them on facebook rather than paying for them?

or is that not what youre getting at?

That's an interesting point. I'm not suggesting it's right either legally or morally, but I think you've highlighted a problem.

If someone asks for photo's to be taken, for example at a wedding, then I suspect that most decent people would expect to pay for them. But if the pictures have been taken "on spec", especially at an event that possibly bans the parents from taking their own photo's (yep, I've been to school events like that, and it's difficult to escape the idea that the only reason for the no camera's rule is so they can make a quick buck), there's a danger that it'll be seen as money grabbing, and people will feel less inclined to pay if they can get away with not doing.

Add to that the (incorrect) belief a lot of people have that their image, or that of their kids, is theirs, and I imagine that getting paid for on-spec work is much harder than work that you've been commissioned to carry out?

 

[The Noir Dude]

It is something very difficult to eradicate in this day and age, especially when children are being shown at school how to copy material from the internet. There is a Facebook page which has just started today with information and links. The idea is to try and get as many photographers to like the page and point their customers to the page also. It's to hopefully educate, rather than chastise people. Page link if anyone is interested http://www.facebook.com/pages/Photography-Copyright-Infringement-is-Against-the-Law/280167925408106

 

[Southdowns]

I can't see that having much effect. Even though you say it doesn't chastise, the headline isn't exactly friendly. People won't stop stealing photo's because they think it's illegal, they'll stop doing it when they a) think it's wrong and/or b) have a better alternative.

The music industry tried the bludgeon for ages, which simply set them against the thieves and gave people an odd kind of justification. Things are only improving there now that the business model is changing, driven to a large extent by Apple. It's not back to the good old days, but at least a large number of people are starting to think obtaining music legally is a better option than stealing it, and are beginning to feel that the industry isn't just out to rip them off (why do you think Apple removed DRM from iTunes?).

An example. The Facebook page makes it clear that it's illegal to scan or photograph a printed image you've bought. I'm sure thats right legally, but what do you think most people's "natural justice" view of that would be? I suspect it'd be "I've paid the damn photographer, I'll do what I want thank you very much". I'm not even sure I think it's fair, and I do value photographers!

Again, not right, but all I'm saying is that educating people into the law won't get you far. You need to educate them into why it's the wrong thing to do, and why photographers have value, at the same time as providing them with a way to buy that they feel is fair.

I've no idea how to do that, but it does need to happen I think.

 

[kestral]

You have to show some sort of proof that they are yours.. Mine has my website accross the middle and I give them the urls to the ones on my website... the fact that my email and domain are both kipax.com presumably shows its me

Good job I do this then.

 

[phil8139]

Southdowns,

You're doing exactly the right thing with respect to copyright and pro photographers. Thank you very much. It is a massive problem for us.

That's because he is asking a question he wants an answer to, his moral values dictate that if you don't know - ask. Very nice man that he is

Kipax,

Why muddy the waters? No-one is dictating here but you. The OP and Southdowns both appear to have a good understanding and responsible attitude about copyright and giving images away and you try to persuade them otherwise! Any picture given away to a commercial organisation is one that they COULD have paid for.

Edit: I can't help re: facebook, sorry.

I'm going to try and look at this without flaming...... might not work though.

What in heavens earth are you thinking when reading Kipax's post? Not quite sure where the waters have been muddied, if dictating is 'your pics - your choice .... if it's commercial then sell don't give free' then you must live in land. Selective quoting to try and make your opinion hold water is a weak and feeble attempt at being authorative on the subject.

You could have helped by giving the op your own insight and thoughts

To the OP, Facebook are really good at removing pics, as for if you need to join up to do it.... not sure, but if you can see them you can report them.

Phil.

 

[kestral]

Would you guys peruse a copyright infringement no matter what the circumstances? ie. If someone was using it for financial gain, I get that of course. But what about if say a 12 year old copied a picture, posted it on their FB profile and said something like - Look at this amazing picture of Wayne Rooney's goal.

Is it a case of knowing where to draw the line, or does peoples arrogance / ignorance in this matter really get you angry?

I have just about always pursued copyright infringement and do so even more so now.I have had to deal with no less than three local newspapers in the last 6 months for just simply publishing my photos and not paying even when contacted.Two of them Northcliffe Media publications I had to threaten County Court action before they even replied to my letters and emails.The third, I was contacted by a fellow freelance who warned me a journalist had bought a photo of my website for personal use and was intending to publish it including it in an article he was writing for a newspaper.
There is a culture of ignorance developing since digital and the internet that if someone sees a photo and can download it it belongs to them. I would encourage all photographers even those who want to give their photos away for free to make clear that they are the copyright holders and permission lays with them.

 

[big soft moose]

Would you guys peruse a copyright infringement no matter what the circumstances? ie. If someone was using it for financial gain, I get that of course. But what about if say a 12 year old copied a picture, posted it on their FB profile and said something like - Look at this amazing picture of Wayne Rooney's goal.

Is it a case of knowing where to draw the line, or does peoples arrogance / ignorance in this matter really get you angry?

generally i'll only pursue an infringement to the point of invoicing / claims process if an image is being used commercially - or if the user doesnt respond well when asked to take it down.

in the case of a 12 year old copying one of my pics onto their facebook - i'd just ask facebook to delete it - and maybe send a message asking said 12 year old not to use my pictures without permission.

(which if they ask me first i'd be hapy to give - its only happened once iirc, a year 7 wanted to use some of my nature photos in a school web project about adaptation - I said yes with the proviso that they were only used for that purpose.)

 

[Steve64]

like 12 year olds (and indeed their parents) doing screen grabs of your photos of them at a competition you were covering and putting them on facebook rather than paying for them?

or is that not what youre getting at?

That's not what I meant. If that's the case you have every right to peruse them.
I was think more innocent stuff.

It's interesting to see perspectives. If it's your work you have every right to chase up payment.

 

[neil_g]

That's an interesting point. I'm not suggesting it's right either legally or morally, but I think you've highlighted a problem.

If someone asks for photo's to be taken, for example at a wedding, then I suspect that most decent people would expect to pay for them. But if the pictures have been taken "on spec", especially at an event that possibly bans the parents from taking their own photo's (yep, I've been to school events like that, and it's difficult to escape the idea that the only reason for the no camera's rule is so they can make a quick buck), there's a danger that it'll be seen as money grabbing, and people will feel less inclined to pay if they can get away with not doing.

Add to that the (incorrect) belief a lot of people have that their image, or that of their kids, is theirs, and I imagine that getting paid for on-spec work is much harder than work that you've been commissioned to carry out?

for the record none of the events ive ever been to as an official photographer or just for S and G have banned photography. i dont really see the point, youd never manage to police it anyway.

That's not what I meant.

thats fine, just clarifying