Facebook image theft

Battou · Feb 17, 2009

Arch said:
I have a facebook account... and i have some decent images on there.

The thing im not getting about this whole arguement is that, ok facebook have the right to use my low rez image (on what?.. i doubt they ever will) but isn't this the same as putting your images up on any forum just as this?
People can still right click 'save as' my image and do as they please but they cannot contact me and demand a high rez version.
This is how im reading the facebook rules... if they have the right to contact me and demand a full rez image for printing use, then damn straight im taking them down, but i don't read anything that says that.
So from my point of view its like 'so what' they have a low rez copy of one of my images *shrug*. So does anyone else who liked one of my images and saved it.

If some one can find something that says they have the right to demand a 'proper' copy of the image then please do tell me as i am interested to know if this is the case.

Two problems:

The first comes down to what Enough Already said, common folk are just misreading it, this answers question as to why you are not seeing it, because you are reading it correctly. This is likely a shoddy attempted clarification error on their part. However naturally the situation grows out of proportion and those who are not versed in legal jibberish assume the worst and go from there perpetuating the ideaology and ensuing arguement that they can do whatever they want when they want.

The second lies in the fact they state that the licence is perminate and copyright holder can not revoke the licence to display whatever images the copyright holder has uploaded be they low rez or what ever. As I mentioned earlier that is wrong, this gets those who know how to read them into an uproar because it implies that even if you remove your works from the site they can continue to display them. It is in those two little words that makes it different from a forum such as this, As it is worded they are basically saying you can not delete your images once you uploaded them ever, where as on a site like this you can remove imagery at any time. It is in what is implied that the OP was correct in they are claiming rights to the copies of what is placed on their servers that the copyright holder can not revoke. Since people are removing photos enmasse from facebook, I find it safe to say this is a case poor choice of words on the part of facebooks administration staff and is not truly in effect as it is written.

Overread · Feb 17, 2009

Arch said:
I have a facebook account... and i have some decent images on there.

The thing im not getting about this whole arguement is that, ok facebook have the right to use my low rez image (on what?.. i doubt they ever will) but isn't this the same as putting your images up on any forum just as this?
People can still right click 'save as' my image and do as they please but they cannot contact me and demand a high rez version.
This is how im reading the facebook rules... if they have the right to contact me and demand a full rez image for printing use, then damn straight im taking them down, but i don't read anything that says that.
So from my point of view its like 'so what' they have a low rez copy of one of my images *shrug*. So does anyone else who liked one of my images and saved it.

If some one can find something that says they have the right to demand a 'proper' copy of the image then please do tell me as i am interested to know if this is the case.

I have not come accross anything which suggests that they can demand a highres version of your shot - all they own is the version that you upload to their service. As for the legal side I feel that even if the shots are 99% total trash on the site a legal clause like this should still not be allowed. Theft is theft it should not matter if what is stolen is a happy snap off a mobile phone or a world class shot taken on a hassy.

I find it hard to belive that its a wording error on the part of facebook - legal teams are not clueless and the words are clear in their intent. IF they truly intend not to sell on the images why then have wording that specifically allows for this?

As for the general theft of images by saving them off the net yes that will take place if your data is on the net, but you retain the right to sue the person if they then go and try to profit off your image of if it gets used for something you find disagreeable (lets say that mobile phone shot of you drunk at a party ends up as the next national image for an anti drugs campagin - it could very easily happen if they were to sell the images)

bigtwinky · Feb 17, 2009

If there is a change in the agreement, should we not of all had to re-agree to the new wording?

I know many of us just click I ACCEPT without reading, but the few times I've had Terms changed after I accepted on other sites, I would have to re-accept the new terms.

MikeBcos · Feb 17, 2009

bigtwinky said:
If there is a change in the agreement, should we not of all had to re-agree to the new wording?

I know many of us just click I ACCEPT without reading, but the few times I've had Terms changed after I accepted on other sites, I would have to re-accept the new terms.

Somewhere in the terms and conditions will be a clause stating that you agree to read and accept any future changes to those terms and conditions.

Village Idiot · Feb 17, 2009

And if my friend manages to get a high res copy of one of my photos and uploads it on facebook without my permission, then they're commiting copyright infringement and their EULA is moot.

I didn't give any one permission. They stole it, hosted on Facebook, and facebook is helping to facilitate the crime.

Mike_E · Feb 17, 2009

If you put up a photo with your copyright on it, do they then own your copyright and thereby everything that has your copyright on it?

Shame I'm not a hacker. LOL

Overread · Feb 17, 2009

they don't own the copywrite - they just get a no limits and royalty free licence to use the image. So you can still sell the image on if you choose to - but of course they can as well - to anyone for any use they wish

JerryPH · Feb 17, 2009

I suppose if you really want to have your photos on FaceBook, do 2 important things to protect yourself.

First, FB shrinks all pics to a maximum of 606 pixels on the long side. So, first of all, save your pics at the lowest res that you can live with and make them exactly 606 pixels on the long side. Second... watermark them... nice bigger than average watermarks. Then, if they want, what much can they do with a watermarked 606 pixel wide image? Well some things, of course, but a LOT less than if you are foolishly uploading full-sized JPGs and letting the FB engine resize the pic for you (their resize engine sucks, BTW, and makes your pics look like crap, IMHO).

Me... I am sticking to what I say... they get nothing from me, not even a blurry tiny avatar.

Overread · Feb 17, 2009

so far only flickr seems to operate good online image resizing service - at least its resized images look decent when compared to the original and they don't seem to oversharpen either which is good.

I do agree even if the uses of such images are limited (don't just think of printing a 600pixel image is very usable on the internet even if its low res) and even if they are not prize winning quality that still does not mean they get the rights to take them.

Neuner · Feb 17, 2009

Not sure how this can all be. I mean, on FB I just saw a U2 Facebook page. It has their pictures, songs and videos. Now you know there is no way that Island or U2 would let FB get away with making money on 'Where the Streets Have No Name' so there definitely has to be a way around it, a way to fight it or their agreement has no merit.

The other item I don't get is how you have the option to have your images and content viewable to only friends and not the public. If Facebook makes any of this public can't they be held liable? From my experience, the ones with the more or better lawyers win (OJ).

MikeBcos · Feb 17, 2009

JerryPH said:
I suppose if you really want to have your photos on FaceBook, do 2 important things to protect yourself.

First, FB shrinks all pics to a maximum of 606 pixels on the long side. So, first of all, save your pics at the lowest res that you can live with and make them exactly 606 pixels on the long side. Second... watermark them... nice bigger than average watermarks. Then, if they want, what much can they do with a watermarked 606 pixel wide image? Well some things, of course, but a LOT less than if you are foolishly uploading full-sized JPGs and letting the FB engine resize the pic for you (their resize engine sucks, BTW, and makes your pics look like crap, IMHO).

Me... I am sticking to what I say... they get nothing from me, not even a blurry tiny avatar.

I do have quite a few photos on Facebook, but, none of them are exactly "good photographs". Plus, I shoot Raw+jpeg basic, all my uploaded photos come from the basic jpg, they are all sized to 800 longest edge before uploading.

If Facebook want to use one of my low-res, tiny images and sell it good luck to them. And if they ever do and I find out about it I'll probably just ask the buyer if they would be interested in a high res version for a very reasonable rate!

Battou · Feb 17, 2009

Overread said:
I find it hard to belive that its a wording error on the part of facebook - legal teams are not clueless and the words are clear in their intent. IF they truly intend not to sell on the images why then have wording that specifically allows for this?

The problem here is this, These are not written by Leagl teams, they are often written by site staff, it is for this very reason the TOS page for Photo Lucidity has not been updated since 2006, I don't want to make a mistake like this and end up with the same reactions from users.

invisible · Feb 17, 2009

Battou said:
These are not written by Leagl teams, they are often written by site staff

They are drafted by legal teams when the site is a multibillion dollar company like Facebook.

ANDS! · Feb 17, 2009

Battou said:
The problem here is this, These are not written by Leagl teams, they are often written by site staff, it is for this very reason the TOS page for Photo Lucidity has not been updated since 2006, I don't want to make a mistake like this and end up with the same reactions from users.

Not likely. You can't just make up laws; even though Facebook is a private service, you still have to operate within the confines of the law.

Besides, as posted in the other thread - this is all hysteria over nothing.

Battou · Feb 18, 2009

invisible said:
They are drafted by legal teams when the site is a multibillion dollar company like Facebook.

You are going to have to provide me indisputable proof that this one was infact written by an outside legle team. In Facebooks Official statement they say "We", Unless otherwise noted, all first-person pronouns ("we", "us") used in website Policy refer to applicable site staff members, and all second-person pronouns ("you") refer to the registered member of the applicable site and/or the unregistered visitor to the applicable site. They also go on to say "We're at an interesting point in the development of the open online world where these issues are being worked out. It's difficult terrain to navigate and we're going to make some missteps" I think that only makes my case of poor choice of words on the part of facebooks administration staff more plauseable, I mean thay come right out and say We are not exactly sure how to go about this so we might screw up somewhere along the lines.

On Facebook, People Own and Control Their Information | Facebook