Media Law - Using photos from Facebook

If it's relevant to the story then I can't see a problem.

The other thing to consider is the likelihood of anyone complaining. Copyright is civil law rather than criminal law and only the copyright owner can bring an infringement claim.

If your intended use is pertinent to the story and is not defamatory then it should be fine.


Steve.
 
So hypothetically; If I were to die in a newsworthy manner and the media were to use my profile picture. Would the copyright holder of my profile picture* be able to claim for breach of copyright from whoever has used it?

(*Self-shot, so my next of kin.)
 
No.

You don't even need to die in a 'newsworthy manner'. Just dying is enough. If they want to report the fact that you have died then your picture can be 'fairly used' to accompany the news.


Steve.
 
DarrenToogood said:
As the photographs are on an open profile on Facebook, available for any member of the public to view, I would say it is Ok to use them?
Click to expand...

Incorrect
 
Last edited:
The photos being publicly viewable just makes it easy to access them. It doesn't in itself make it o.k. to use them. You can only use them without permission if the use is covered by the fair use policy.


Steve.
 
Steve, you're talking rot.

a) There is no such thing as 'Fair Use' in UK copyright law.

b) Photographs are specifically excluded from Sect 30 of the CDPA for news reporting

If a media outlet takes a copy of a photograph from Facebook without permission, then it is de facto copyright infringement.
 
Mr Half a Lion is correct. I have just discovered that photographs are excluded.

What I referred to as fair use is actually called fair dealing.


Steve.
 
DarrenToogood said:
The photograph was of a deceased person - Don't think he was going to chase me for using the photo!
Click to expand...

The deceased person may not own the copyright of the photo - that is where you are getting mixed up Darren, it is the photographer (in most cases) that own the copyright not the subject.
 
Andy_S said:
So hypothetically; If I were to die in a newsworthy manner and the media were to use my profile picture. Would the copyright holder of my profile picture* be able to claim for breach of copyright from whoever has used it?

(*Self-shot, so my next of kin.)
Click to expand...

Why worry about copyright rules for something like that?

Don't you think that if you die in a newsworthy manner, it is not copyright matters you or your family and friends should be worried about, it is actually newspapers and news agencies worried about being taken to courts for libel?

Supposing as an example: Mr Smith died in a newsworthy manner trying to save the life of Miss Jones, but Miss Jones was still killed, then the newspapers copied pics of Mr Smith off Facebook without permissions and made front covers that reads 'Mr Smith was guity of murder, he killed himself than to face court!' and the newspapers sold like hot cakes. But later it was found out that someone else, say Mr Joe Q Public was arrested, tried in court, found to be the real murderer as he was provied to have killed them both.

Why worry about breaking copyright rules? Of course, newspapers copied a Facebook photo and rank in more money by selling newspapers with a photo taken by someone else, while the poor photographer gets nothing, so it can be a case of newspapers breaking copyright, feel free to sue the newspapers for getting money out of your Facebook photo, but surely that's a small fry compared to the fact that they used someone else's Facebook photo and printed libel?
 
DarrenToogood said:
As the photographs are on an open profile on Facebook, available for any member of the public to view, I would say it is Ok to use them?
Click to expand...

Not really totally right.

Not every Facebook profiles are open to the public, you forgot that some people would like to set their privacy settings to friends only, or friends of friends, and some other websites have options where you can set your account in a way that it won't be shown on Google.
 
DarrenToogood said:
The photograph was of a deceased person - Don't think he was going to chase me for using the photo!
Click to expand...

Stop acting like a shyster. Go and do a proper collect like everyone else.

Even if it was a self portrait, copyright still exists in the photograph for 70 years after the author's death. Therefore the estate could pursue you.
 
DarrenToogood said:
The photograph was of a deceased person - Don't think he was going to chase me for using the photo!
Click to expand...

Well Darren, basically....

tiler65 said:
The deceased person may not own the copyright of the photo - that is where you are getting mixed up Darren, it is the photographer (in most cases) that own the copyright not the subject.
Click to expand...

Tiler65 is correct.

I took some photos of a friend of mine who modelled for me as part of my project, and I hope some day to sell my works. I gave copies to my friend, if she puts my photos on her Facebook profile, that is fine by me. But if she dies and the media copied her photos, they would have been selling the newspapers with my photos on them and are raking in money which becames their wages, and if my project failed to sell, I don't get paid. That would be unfair that they are getting paid for my work!! If she is the deceased and I am the photographer, and you are the reporter who copied my photos off her Facebook and gets paid a bonus for selling a good story, then you will find that I am the one who will be chasing you for using my photos to sell a good story!


Okay Darren, even if the deceased was the photographer, and had used a self-timer, a remote controller, a long cable release, or even took a photo of himself/herself in the mirror, well then, DemiLion is right about....


DemiLion said:
Even if it was a self portrait, copyright still exists in the photograph for 70 years after the author's death. Therefore the estate could pursue you.
Click to expand...

Supposing I were to write an autobiography about myself which includes my own self-portrait photos that are on my Facebook, i hope to sell it, rake in money, leave it in my Last Will saying should I die, I wish for the money to be given to my kids. Now if I do die before the book got sold, the newspaper copied my Facebook photos, sold newspapers after newspapers, raking in more money, but my book never got printed, so I never got paid, and the newspaper is getting paid for selling more newspapers because of my photos on it, then of course, like Demi point out, my family (the estate) could pursue the reporter because he/she is getting paid for my photos, which I myself took in order to sell.

It is still breaking copyright, even if photographer is dead, unless the newspaper ask first, or pay a fee, or make sure the photographer's name is in the by-line, or wait 70 years after the photographer's death!
 
Major Eazy said:
It is still breaking copyright, even if photographer is dead, unless the newspaper ask first, or pay a fee, or make sure the photographer's name is in the by-line, or wait 70 years after the photographer's death!
Click to expand...


There's no 'OR' about it. Unless a licence is sought, reproducing a work is breach of copyright; credited or not.
 
Almost all photographs ever taken are just snapshots. Most people who own cameras are not enthusiasts or professionals like us on this forum. They do not consider their snapshots to be valuable works of art and do not know about or care about copyright.

If you want to use someone's image from their Facebook page which has probably been created by such a person and can't get permission then do what businesses do with most aspects of their businesses - a risk assessment.

i.e. what are the risks of using the image without permission and what are the chances of it ever being a problem.

In the case of using someone's image in an obituary, I would think both the risk and the likelihood are low.

If it ever came to an infringement case, the payment required would be minimal and the chances of that happening are next to zero.

I'm sure newspapers do this all the time.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Major Eazy said:
Why worry about copyright rules for something like that?

Don't you think that if you die in a newsworthy manner, it is not copyright matters you or your family and friends should be worried about, it is actually newspapers and news agencies worried about being taken to courts for libel?
Click to expand...

They are two completely different issues. I agree the media needs to be wary of printing libleous material, but the unauthorised use of a photograph is not libelous. Accompanying text may be, but that would still be the case had the photo not been included, or if the copyright holder had given permission. The 'unauthorised' use is irrelevant.

The penalties for lible may be higher, should someone persue it, but that doesn't mean the media should be free to commit lesser offences.
 
If you accurately report, there is no libel.


Photos can't be copied for news reporting but could be used for review or critique.

They could be included in a screen grab of the Facebook page as that would be an incidental inclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top