| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Weird verbage about © and Facebook...
Jack Howard, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Central Jersey | NJ | USA | Posted: 5:07 PM on 08.16.10 |
->> Mark Loundy, this one's right up your alley, kind of, sort of:
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=4450&p=2
I've never, not once, heard it referred to as "buying your copyright" and asides from that, does the TOS of FB really allow this, and would registering with the © office, and then posting to FB really offer protections, or wouldn't the act of posting and thereby agreeing to the FB TOS negate any © claim?
Thoughts?
~~~~~~ |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 5:40 PM on 08.16.10 |
| ->> I'd say that the writer's use of the line, "Once you buy your copyrights to the photos" shows that he/she doesn't know a lot about copyright. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 8:41 PM on 08.16.10 |
| ->> That has to be the silliest thing I've ever read. Seriously the writer has no clue about the topic. Ignorance at THAT level deserves a cookie or something. WOW. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 9:20 PM on 08.16.10 |
->> Jack,
What Jim and Eric said.
--Mark |
|
Clay Begrin, Photographer
 |
Petaluma | Ca | USA | Posted: 9:55 PM on 08.16.10 |
| ->> The guy writing the article for Digital Camera Review may not have it together, but does Facebook have the proper wording and/or agreement in their T.O.S. to actually allow them to use your images? Interesting. I hate reading those lengthy agreements etc but may do so just to see what Facebook states their position is. |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 1:32 PM on 08.19.10 |
->> Well if you go back to the post and read the 'discussion' you will see that the author has graciously slipped his OTHER foot into his mouth for our amusement. I will repeat. The man knows not what he writes about.
Mark he's all yours to school ;) |
|
Craig Mitchelldyer, Photographer, Assistant
|
Portland | OR | USA | Posted: 2:24 PM on 08.19.10 |
| ->> hahahah. that is funny. |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 2:57 PM on 08.19.10 |
->> Clay-
Their agreement is basically that you sign over all rights to the images in perpetuity. :) |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 2:07 PM on 08.20.10 |
| ->> Is he talking about Mommies buying c. from pros, or their own images that they take? |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 2:27 PM on 08.20.10 |
->> Well Sam from his description I would say that he it talking about REGISTERING your copyright and not BUYING it. I'm starting to think that this is more a case of English not being his primary language and that some of the verbiage is getting fouled up in interpretation.
IF the problem was that he used BUY when he meant REGISTER then he is at least 1/2 right. Although I think that focusing on Facebook's TOS is where he gets it wrong. Most if not all sites, even this one at one point, have some kind of language in the TOS that assigns them the right to display, store, license and assign to a third party the images that you post. They HAVE TO. I think that it was Grover who explained the reasoning when it came up in the SS TOS.
The bottom line is that without those assignment powers if FB were to be sold to say Google. Then the license to display your images would die. You would either have to re-upload the images to Google's servers and start over or sign up again and agree to a whole new TOS. Needless to say that this would make the buying and selling of these sites less attractive if there is a chance that some percentage of the content will be lost at the sale.
I'd be interested in hearing any case where any of these sites grabbed an image and made it available for a third party to use and did so based solely on the rights granted by the TOS. Facebook has a lot more to lose than gain in the proposition. If it became an even RARE case where FB would simply grab an image out of someone's albums and license it to a third party, people would simply stop using the service. How much cash would such a license generate versus the cost in users leaving the site and the diminished ad revenue?
Can you say Red Herring? |
|
Jody Gomez, Photographer
|
Murrieta | CA | USA | Posted: 7:39 PM on 08.22.10 |
->> If anyone is interested, here is Facebook's TOS regarding IP:
"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
1. 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.
2. When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others)." |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|