Facebook - beware the copyright black hole!

M

monochromejrnl

Well-known
Local time
5:27 PM
Joined
Aug 10, 2006
Messages
809
i was recently shocked to learn that by posting photos to facebook, you automatically grant them a non-exclusive, royalty free (but otherwise unrestricted) license to your images...

read their Terms and Conditions and decide for yourself ...
www.facebook.com/terms.php

"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. 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."

thoughts?!?!?!
 
Last edited:
yikes!

A similar policy (not nearly THIS nefarious) is at Adorama states if you buy prints on sale from them, you are granting them a perpetual license!!
 
If you look carefully enough, you'll find that almost every site that enables you to post photos for public viewing has a similar provision (if they're getting good legal advice, that is.)

The reason is that because of the way the Internet inherently works, a photo-posting site needs this type of license to comply with the letter of the law.

Copyright is, literally, the "right to copy," and copyright law generally forbids making copies of creative works without a license from the copyright holder.

But in order for a viewer to see a posted photo on the Web, a copy of that photo has to be downloaded to his/her computer so it can be displayed by the browser. Technically, that copy is covered by copyright law just the same as any other copy, making a license necessary.
 
I just deaativated my account. Didn't use it anyhow. They don't have the right to the copyrights of my photos, no way would I post there anyhow. Thanks Dave, that was interesting,
 
Last edited:
jlw said:
If you look carefully enough, you'll find that almost every site that enables you to post photos for public viewing has a similar provision
Click to expand...

Good point..
I wonder what Flickr's, Photobucket's and Pbase's legal agreements have to say.

I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but I am always a wee bit leery about a place that claims to let you do all sorts of stuff for "free" yet somewhere, somehow, someone has to flip the bill for all that bandwidth (not to mention hosting or co-hosting) that's being sucked up by all the people flocking to the cool, free, "Social Networking" site.

Dave
 
jlw said:
If you look carefully enough, you'll find that almost every site that enables you to post photos for public viewing has a similar provision (if they're getting good legal advice, that is.)
Click to expand...

Yeah, lawyers are running everything, even our government :eek:. A while ago I came across a hosting service called fotki. Cheap - not free - for unlimited hosting, few restrictions and some extra services. Their terms and conditions are refreshingly clear and supportive of posters' rights.

- John
 
although other sites have similar license grants on their T&Cs, Facebook goes further than almsot any that I've encountered...
Yahoo terms are more restrictive in that they can only use soley for the purpose for which the Content was submitted... :

With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Service other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Service and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Service.


Facebook also indicates the grant is irrevocable and perpetual, yet goes on to say that once a user deletes or removes Content, the license grant automatically expires... potential conflict no?

the Facebook T&Cs also include the right to sublicense which i also find scary as there is nothing that would preclude sublicensing Content for profit...
 
Last edited:
Joe Mondello said:
yikes!

A similar policy (not nearly THIS nefarious) is at Adorama states if you buy prints on sale from them, you are granting them a perpetual license!!
Click to expand...
What!! I never knew about this (not that I would have purchased prints for the US)
 
ErikFive said:
I dont use my real name there and I dont post pictures that I care about or pictures of my family. I also use my hotmail spam-email to register. I am very careful using my whole full name on the internett what so ever. I dont want any future job go down the drain because I have 100pics of myself with a Viking helmet and a ladyboy in each arm and **** faced in Phuket(never been to Phuket, but just making an example). I bet that everyone googles job candidates before a job interview. Erik5 is my name, but its just my first and middle name.
Click to expand...

I agree. What I have online with name is realted and consistent (i.e., my photos, or work I was involved, or publications).
 
How's Flickr in all this copyright business. I just started one and really like it, but sure don't like the sound of that facebook stuff. I'm on facebook, but I just post pictures of my drunk friends and stuff like that, I guess if I wanted my friends there to see my other stuff, i'd put it a link to flickr, (assuming it's not the same!)

John
 
mexipike said:
How's Flickr in all this copyright business. I just started one and really like it, but sure don't like the sound of that facebook stuff. I'm on facebook, but I just post pictures of my drunk friends and stuff like that, I guess if I wanted my friends there to see my other stuff, i'd put it a link to flickr, (assuming it's not the same!)

John
Click to expand...

John - read the Terms of Use on Flickr and decide for yourself if it's okay with you... it's the same Terms as Yahoo since it is now owned by Yahoo... my reading of the Yahoo terms suggests it's more restrictive in terms of what Yahoo can do with the images (there is a license grant - unavoidable since they must store and therefore reproduce your images) ... not suggesting it's better or worse, but do strongly suggest reading it before hitting 'ACCEPT' - amazes me that most folks don't actually read it ... ;P
 
dcsang said:
Good point..

I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist but I am always a wee bit leery about a place that claims to let you do all sorts of stuff for "free" yet somewhere, somehow, someone has to flip the bill for all that bandwidth (not to mention hosting or co-hosting) that's being sucked up by all the people flocking to the cool, free, "Social Networking" site.

Dave
Click to expand...
Many free content websites on the internet are started by a small company, and offset bandwidth growth fees with advertising revenue. When the site reaches a critical mass and attracts the attention of investors, the entire outfit is sold for a fortune.


Clarence
 
Last edited:
Places like flickr and facebook are mostly for hobbist. Almost all professional photographers, esp. fine art photographers have their own websites. Still I don't like what facebgook is doing, but I haven't used it and I joined on a whim. I'll post my pics here and flickr. But I'm really not impressed with flickr. especially the $25.00 a year fee they charge just so you can have pro next to your name. I find peoples photo blogs more interesting to put your photos on.
 
monochromejrnl said:
i was recently shocked to learn that by posting photos to facebook, you automatically grant them a non-exclusive, royalty free (but otherwise unrestricted) license to your images...

read their Terms and Conditions and decide for yourself ...
www.facebook.com/terms.php

"When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. 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."

thoughts?!?!?!
Click to expand...

Unacceptable. A lot of web sites attempt something similar in terms of Copyright. Best advice is not to post anything there... and I do mean anything that you value. Period.
 
Facebook would not be a good site to show case your work as it auto resizes your uploaded image to a predetermined size and neither the owner nor the viewers have any way of accessing the image at its original size
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom