FB: image rights grab suddenly makes sense from business PoV
Discussion
During the reporting of the shootings on board HMS Astute I noticed a number of photo credits to Facebook. Not noticed this before even though it must have been going on for a while.
It clicked how, by indiscriminately gathering usage rights to all content, FB is presumably assuring itself of an income stream from the everyday images of people who *become* the news.
Seems to contrast with the popular concern that FB's intent is to secure royalty-free rights to any images of creative/ artistic value.
It clicked how, by indiscriminately gathering usage rights to all content, FB is presumably assuring itself of an income stream from the everyday images of people who *become* the news.
Seems to contrast with the popular concern that FB's intent is to secure royalty-free rights to any images of creative/ artistic value.
AndWhyNot said:
It clicked how, by indiscriminately gathering usage rights to all content, FB is presumably assuring itself of an income stream from the everyday images of people who *become* the news.
Yep. This’ll be a big deal over the next few years. Newsworthy stuff aside, you’ll also see trashy celebrity magazines filling up with Facebook-credited ‘before they were famous’ snaps.The big photo agencies will have long ago taken note and set up ‘first refusal’ contracts with Facebook.
I don't think there's much to worry about. this says:
"The way they stand now, Facebook's terms of service claim that the company does not have ownership over content, yet that it does have "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (to)...use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works, and distribute" material as long as it doesn't violate the privacy preferences set by the user."
In other words, as long as your privacy settings say only friends can see your snaps,they shouldn't be used by Facebook.
Apparently, around 2,500,000,000 photos are uploaded every month onto Facebook. What are the chances of one of yours being used?
Of course the bottom line is not to put up anything you would mind being used elsewhere.
"The way they stand now, Facebook's terms of service claim that the company does not have ownership over content, yet that it does have "an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (to)...use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works, and distribute" material as long as it doesn't violate the privacy preferences set by the user."
In other words, as long as your privacy settings say only friends can see your snaps,they shouldn't be used by Facebook.
Apparently, around 2,500,000,000 photos are uploaded every month onto Facebook. What are the chances of one of yours being used?
Of course the bottom line is not to put up anything you would mind being used elsewhere.
S47 said:
Sad I know - but anything posted on web is likely to be used/stolen without permission.
Which is why it's a good idea to spend £5 and get your own web domain where you can protect your photos... even when they are stolen (which they will be), YOU own the copyright (without exception) and can take actions you deem appropriate.Been there, done it, got the guy to cough up shed loads.
dxbtiger said:
Slightly O/T but Steve how do you go about getting your own site?
5 squid is a minimal outlay and I hate the fact that you can't get your own photos back from flickr.
Do you build the site yourself using something like dreamweaver or is it even easier than that?
Build a site via any software you want... Microsoft Word will even do it (I do indeed use Dreamweaver). Then buy a domain from someone like www.easily.co.uk (4.99 for a co.uk - plus a bit for some space if your ISP doesn't give you any free), then follow their instructions to upload.5 squid is a minimal outlay and I hate the fact that you can't get your own photos back from flickr.
Do you build the site yourself using something like dreamweaver or is it even easier than that?
Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 13th April 00:15
Having your own web domain (that’s the web address) doesn’t protect anything. Building your own website doesn’t protect anything. It just means that you’re in control of publishing the stuff instead of outsourcing the job to an established company who knows what they are doing.
If anything, it’s easier for someone to ‘borrow’ images from an amateur-built website than it is for them to do so from a Flickr account or similar.
As a photographer, you own the copyright to any photos you take. You may sell or give publishing rights to other parties, but publishing rights are a different matter from copyright. I’m sure most of you already know all this.
This thread started with chat about photos on Facebook … because in Facebook’s T&Cs it states that when you upload a photo the publishing rights transfer to them. No ifs, no buts, they have the right to publish, republish and even sell further republishing rights to third parties. It’s that last part that people don’t expect—that Facebook can make money from your photos, if they get the chance.
More specialised photo hosting websites, like Flickr, tend to have more agreeable terms. Flickr in fact gives you a lot of options for exactly what level of rights management you want to have in place. If you’re worried about that side of things it’s worth spending some time doing some research for yourself and making a well-informed decision.
If anything, it’s easier for someone to ‘borrow’ images from an amateur-built website than it is for them to do so from a Flickr account or similar.
As a photographer, you own the copyright to any photos you take. You may sell or give publishing rights to other parties, but publishing rights are a different matter from copyright. I’m sure most of you already know all this.
This thread started with chat about photos on Facebook … because in Facebook’s T&Cs it states that when you upload a photo the publishing rights transfer to them. No ifs, no buts, they have the right to publish, republish and even sell further republishing rights to third parties. It’s that last part that people don’t expect—that Facebook can make money from your photos, if they get the chance.
More specialised photo hosting websites, like Flickr, tend to have more agreeable terms. Flickr in fact gives you a lot of options for exactly what level of rights management you want to have in place. If you’re worried about that side of things it’s worth spending some time doing some research for yourself and making a well-informed decision.
poprock said:
Having your own web domain (that’s the web address) doesn’t protect anything. Building your own website doesn’t protect anything. It just means that you’re in control of publishing the stuff instead of outsourcing the job to an established company who knows what they are doing.
This thread started with chat about photos on Facebook … because in Facebook’s T&Cs it states that when you upload a photo the publishing rights transfer to them. No ifs, no buts, they have the right to publish, republish and even sell further republishing rights to third parties. It’s that last part that people don’t expect—that Facebook can make money from your photos, if they get the chance.
I agree that anyone can do 'right click/save as' or 'print screen/copy/paste', but having your own webspace avoids image raids by cunning corporates. People stealing photos is one thing but inadvertently signing them away because you failed to uncheck a box is another. You may as remove as many risks as possible and keep as much control as possible.This thread started with chat about photos on Facebook … because in Facebook’s T&Cs it states that when you upload a photo the publishing rights transfer to them. No ifs, no buts, they have the right to publish, republish and even sell further republishing rights to third parties. It’s that last part that people don’t expect—that Facebook can make money from your photos, if they get the chance.
I’d argue that taking the time to read the T&Cs when you sign up for an image host is a lot easier than learning to build and maintain your own website … but each to their own, of course.
What’s interesting about the social media thing is that the big players are building up a massive historical library as a by-product of their core business. Not just photos, but all the other data as well. The smart businesses are going to find all sorts of ways to profit from that in the future—as time goes on and the archive grows, its value rises exponentially.
What’s interesting about the social media thing is that the big players are building up a massive historical library as a by-product of their core business. Not just photos, but all the other data as well. The smart businesses are going to find all sorts of ways to profit from that in the future—as time goes on and the archive grows, its value rises exponentially.
poprock said:
This thread started with chat about photos on Facebook … because in Facebook’s T&Cs it states that when you upload a photo the publishing rights transfer to them. No ifs, no buts, they have the right to publish, republish and even sell further republishing rights to third parties. It’s that last part that people don’t expect—that Facebook can make money from your photos, if they get the chance.
//
What’s interesting about the social media thing is that the big players are building up a massive historical library as a by-product of their core business. Not just photos, but all the other data as well. The smart businesses are going to find all sorts of ways to profit from that in the future—as time goes on and the archive grows, its value rises exponentially.
Yeah, this.//
What’s interesting about the social media thing is that the big players are building up a massive historical library as a by-product of their core business. Not just photos, but all the other data as well. The smart businesses are going to find all sorts of ways to profit from that in the future—as time goes on and the archive grows, its value rises exponentially.
It's trojan-esque in that whilst the high-profile concern has all been about rights grabs against professionally-produced images, the real value to Facebook et al is the sheer extent of the everday social portfolio they're building.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff