Posting Photos on Facebook...Bad Idea?

[PhilGarber]

Hi-

I know this will spiral back to the risk vs. reward factor of placing images online, but I'm still at a loss of what to do.

I wish to post my fine art photos online purely because it is a strong hobby of mine. I also understand that my photos are of the quality where there is at least a possibility of them being stolen or simply used without the offender aware of their copyright.

Watermarks are useless crap.. right? to big, they ruin the image, too small, they're worthless. What I'm really asking is would you post your professional photos on such an open website as Facebook?

Thanks,

Phil,

 

[loopy]

I heard somewhere that in Facebook's TOS it states that they may use any photo uploaded to facebook. Never checked it out for myself though. I think facebook has an "order prints" option as well, so you may want to only upload low resolution pictures.

When you post pictures anywhere online you run the risk of them being used without your permission.

 

[PhilGarber]

****.....Thanks Loopy, I check out Facebook's TOS.

 

[Big Mike]

I would think the risk is fairly low...so what is the reward for you? If you want to show them off, then go for it.

I think a small, unobtrusive watermark can help. Sure, it can be cropped or cloned out but if someone's willing to go that far, not much is going to stop them anyway.

I guess it comes down to why you are taking the photos in the first place. If you are taking them to make money, to put food on your table, then you will want to protect them. But if you are taking them, with the intention of showing them to other people...that that's what you should do.

 

[PhilGarber]

Thanks Mike. I'm really shooting for both of those reasons. To pursue a hobby I enjoy, and build my future portfolio.

 

[max3k]

There is a spot in your profile preferences on facebook that you can check if you dont want them to use your images. I dont remember exactly where, but I know its there because i checked it on mine last month.

 

[bigtwinky]

If i upload a 500k picture to facebook (where I downed the resolution and image size in photoshop), after its uploaded, its usually sitting at 50k. So anyone who rightclicks and saves the image has a horribly low quality shot.

Good enough to put on another website, not enough for print.

 

[musicaleCA]

Facebook craps on your photos. SOOOooo much compression. *sighs* I put a link to my Flickr page of the image whenever I put them on Facebook.

As for the ToS, I just protect myself by staying organized (kinda-sorta). My serious work goes on Flickr. But if it's friends or family, it's on Facebook, so they can, you know, actually see them. And if they want prints they talk to me directly. I keep an album of 6 recent images from my Flickr photostream on Facebook, with links back, to lure people to my photostream. Mwahahahahahaha!!!

Just delete the image, and Facebook's rights to use it are immediately revoked. In other words, the license for them to use it is there so that they can, you know, use it on the website as you intend and show it to whomever is allowed to see it, and leave no room for them to be sued in the process. If they have any intelligence at all, they won't use your images in any larger capacity—like and ad campaign or other larger-scale projects—without your consent, because if you found out, all you'd have to do is delete the image and then sue the pants off them.

My opinion is that a small watermark is helpful; more so when you have a logo or other branding to establish. It's a way of making sure that people legitimately viewing the image anywhere else (let's be honest, people direct link to images all the time on the internet), will see your name or brand too. They're never an effective copy-protection scheme though. I know Imagekind has a section about it in their help section, where they explain honestly why aggressive watermarking is probably a very bad idea. (That said, I still hate watermarks.)

 

[bhop]

Personally, I don't post stuff I care about on facebook.

here's why
"For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it."

 

[boogschd]

facebook's uploader is crap

 

[Garbz]

Facebook has a builtin thing that pulls in data from your flickr account. That way you can have flickr photos accessible from facebook, and even show up in your announcements, while not being subjected to facebook tos.

 

[PhilGarber]

Facebook has a builtin thing that pulls in data from your flickr account. That way you can have flickr photos accessible from facebook, and even show up in your announcements, while not being subjected to facebook tos.

Ooooh.. That sounds like my ticket. I'll be looking into that.

 

[PhilGarber]

Thanks all for your input.

 

[Dominantly]

Really? Are your photos that good?

I find it funny to think that someone would take a photo off Facebook with that horrible compression, and small size, and try and do anything with it. It's even funnier to me that someone would be so worried about it. Like there is a black market where people are going to sell 6x8's of other peoples work, stolen from FB.

 

[craig]

Really? Are your photos that good?

I find it funny to think that someone would take a photo off Facebook with that horrible compression, and small size, and try and do anything with it. It's even funnier to me that someone would be so worried about it. Like there is a black market where people are going to sell 6x8's of other peoples work, stolen from FB.

Very true. Not sure why people never figure that out. Fear is the mind killer!!!!! Just get your work out there!!!!!

Love & Bass