Fair Use of photos? Facebook.

littlemonster

littlemonster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,179
Name
Gemma
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm wondering what "fair use" of photos can cover?

Essentially, one of my personal photos, complete with a crappy watermark on (which I no longer do - but now think I'll be finding myself a watermark program, which is ridiculous for photos of my own pets etc I share on FB!) has been made into a Meme on facebook. Under the page description they claim it as fair use and it'll be removed if asked.


But I'm really not sure how a page can claim fair use when they're taking photos under the assumption of consent, without warning the owner of the image? They say they'll remove if asked but I don't even "like" the page, had one of my friends not shared it I'd have never known. Essentially they're putting the onus on the image owner to know the page exists and ask for the image to be removed.

Honestly the lack of just asking is why I'm annoyed. I know I can tell them to take it down I'm just wondering whether there is any fair use to allow somebody to take, edit and add their own watermark on a photo without asking.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
You own the copyright to your image and no one may use your image without your consent.

Contact Facebook directly and they will remove your image for you
 
In all fairness though - is it a funny meme?

Im pretty sure it has always (since the copyright law change circa 1988) been the responsibility of the photo owner to claim copyright, or things can get very complicated.
 
Nope - it is the responsibility of the user of the photo to make sure they have the copyright holders permission. (This may change with new proposed legislation, but that hasn't been passed yet)

Also "fair use" Is murrrican law - not British law
 
big soft moose said:
Nope - it is the responsibility of the user of the photo to make sure they have the copyright holders permission. (This may change with new proposed legislation, but that hasn't been passed yet)

Also "fair use" Is murrrican law - not British law
Click to expand...

Not only is 'fair use' not English law, it wouldn't cover it anyway. Con artists quoting BS in the hope they make it sound like they know what they're doing:naughty:.
 
big soft moose said:
Nope - it is the responsibility of the user of the photo to make sure they have the copyright holders permission. (This may change with new proposed legislation, but that hasn't been passed yet)

Also "fair use" Is murrrican law - not British law
Click to expand...

Ah, Fair enough - that sounds about right... head was a bit blurry this morning

Still, the most important question hasn't been answered...

Is it a funny meme? :thumbs:
 
In my opinion, no not a funny meme, I think I'd have been less annoyed of it'd been a good one!

They justified it saying they now get most off Facebook donated to them rather than Google images or flickr but still had a load from those sources, essentially.

All gone now, good to know I was right fair usage wouldn't cover it, didn't know it was US only though!

Thanks clever people, you rock.
 
Fair dealing is the term used in the UK.

4.Using the work of others
You may use the work of others if:

•Copyright has expired.
•Your use of the work is fair dealing as defined under the 1988 Copyright Designs and Patents Act (UK).
•Your use of the work is covered under a licensing scheme that you have subscribed to and the copyright holder is a member of.
•The copyright holder has given you permission.
Click to expand...

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p27_work_of_others


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I thought fair dealing was basically critique and private study though - I can't see it covering creating an FB meme
 
big soft moose said:
I thought fair dealing was basically critique and private study though - I can't see it covering creating an FB meme
Click to expand...

Possibly not. I thought I would just point out that there is such a thing as fair dealing (use) in English law.


Steve.
 
big soft moose said:
Also "fair use" Is murrrican law - not British law
Click to expand...

You're assuming the infringing party here is based in the UK.

Memes spread very quickly. It will be saved, reuploaded and redistributed half a dozen times before it get's pulled down. All of these will take the "I didn't make it guv" approach.

Sadly once in the public domain particulaly if comedy is involved you can request as many removals as you want and it will still make it's way onto dozens of funny image compilation sites. Once it stops being relevant or funny then it will slowly disappear into the never never.
 
Last edited:
It doesnt matter where the infringing party is, the "victim" is in the UK and thus the offence was probably committed under UK juristriction (in so much as the internet is 'anywhere' )
 
I just checked - Fair dealing is indeed much more restricted than fair use

Fair dealing requires the infringer to show not only that their copying falls into one of the three fair dealing categories (research and study, criticism and review, or reporting of current events), but also that it is "fair" and, in some cases, that it contains sufficient acknowledgement for the original author. Factors when deciding the "fairness" of the copying can include the quantity of the work taken, whether or not it was previously published, the motives of the infringer and what the consequences of the infringement on the original author's returns for the copyrighted work will be.
Click to expand...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_United_Kingdom_law

Fair use (USA) has a much wider spectrum as described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Although it probably doesn't cover the use described in the OP
 
I think UK fair dealing refers more to written works than images.


Steve.
 
I'm missing some knowledge for this thread, what is a meme?
 
big soft moose said:
I just checked - Fair dealing is indeed much more restricted than fair use



From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing_in_United_Kingdom_law

Fair use (USA) has a much wider spectrum as described here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Although it probably doesn't cover the use described in the OP
Click to expand...

'Reporting of current events' - so is that to say that a news page on Facebook could essentially use one of your images that may be relevant to a story and claim it as 'fair dealing'?
 
Pinpho said:
'Reporting of current events' - so is that to say that a news page on Facebook could essentially use one of your images that may be relevant to a story and claim it as 'fair dealing'?
Click to expand...

I think it would have to be directly relevant - but essentially yes
 
Pinpho said:
'Reporting of current events' - so is that to say that a news page on Facebook could essentially use one of your images that may be relevant to a story and claim it as 'fair dealing'?
Click to expand...

big soft moose said:
I think it would have to be directly relevant - but essentially yes
Click to expand...

Absolutely not. The use of photographs for reporting current affairs is a specific exclusion in fair dealing.
 
DemiLion said:
Absolutely not. The use of photographs for reporting current affairs is a specific exclusion in fair dealing.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: My bad , read that too fast

I pressure the fair dealing clause on reporting current events is to do with repeating other peoples reports and such - but as Mark says photographs are specifically excluded
 
big soft moose said:
It doesn't matter where the infringing party is, the "victim" is in the UK and thus the offence was probably committed under UK juristriction (in so much as the internet is 'anywhere' )
Click to expand...

It's irrelevant where the "victim" in located. Years of company's with far deeper pockets than any photographer on here have proved this (pirate bay for one). Photos particularly Memes get shared and re-uploaded hundreds of times a day (if they are good).

Given the worldwide nature of the Internet the photo could have been "borrowed" by anyone particularly as it was posted on Flickr and therefore the victim in this case would need to win the case in the offenders country.

I wasn't arguing that it was right and Facebook are normally quite good at removing reported infringing content however to think that's the end of it is a pretty nieve stance. Anyone that has shared/downloaded the picture is a new infinger and theirs nothing to stop them re-uploading the photo. In many cases they won't know (or care) where the original image came from.

Sometimes asking for a photo to be removed especially under threat can result in the photo becoming viral (known as the "Streisand Effect")
 
Pinpho said:
'Reporting of current events' - so is that to say that a news page on Facebook could essentially use one of your images that may be relevant to a story and claim it as 'fair dealing'?
Click to expand...

No, There are strict rules about photographs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top