| 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
Facebook to allow hi-res photos and the downloading them
Kent Nishimura, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Tom Frick, Student/Intern, Photographer
 |
Narragansett | RI | USA | Posted: 8:29 PM on 09.30.10 |
| ->> ... Lawsuit waiting to happen |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 9:03 PM on 09.30.10 |
->> Just don't post a high rez version of a photo if its something you don't want downloaded. Seems an easy enough solution. If I post a professional image on FB, its 600 pixels wide and watermarked. Same thing goes for post anywhere I might post an image if I think its of any value.
Tom, what makes you think its a lawsuit waiting to happen ?
There are a wealth of sites on the internet that allow users to post full resolution images and ANY IMAGE you post on the internet can in fact be downloaded if someone wants to badly enough.
I don't see how this changes anything guys..... |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 11:12 PM on 09.30.10 |
->> I don't see anything that indicates a broader access to images. The same limitations (Friends only, etc.) still seem to be in place.
--Mark |
|
Thomas E. Witte, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Cincinnati | OH | USA | Posted: 11:33 PM on 09.30.10 |
->> Aside from that, the axiom "Ignorance is no excuse for the law" always applies. Just because some mutt doesn't read and understand the terms of service doesn't bolster their case if a "friend" who is an art director pulls the photo and uses it.
Even if you've registered the copyright, if the amended TOS state that other users may download the image, then that protects THEM because (I have not seen the new TOS language) it's not explicitly stated that these are just to be downloaded for your own personal amusement.
So basically if I was a defense attorney, I'd point out that you can't get all uppity about someone using you're image if you're the one that put it on a site that expressly allows other users to download your imagery. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 11:40 PM on 09.30.10 |
->> @Thomas,
Same with Flickr and the Creative Commons license, where a publication can use the photo without any permissions or anything.
I only post my work to Photoshelter and link it around and low-res, watermarked photos on my blog. |
|
Tom Frick, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Narragansett | RI | USA | Posted: 6:45 AM on 10.01.10 |
->> Jeff,
Yes you are correct when it come to business and copyright images. But I was leaning more on the personal use part of facebook. Besides the general "creep" factor of downloading and printing someone's personal photos, it could very easily end up in a lawsuit (especially with the amount users on FB that are in high school or lower).
Also Mark, the access to images are still the same. But anybody can view any image on FB, even if they aren't a user, if they have the photo's url. (not the page's url... but the actual photo). So it's kind of pointless.
Sorry for the negative view... I just don't see any benefit
- Tom |
|
Eric Canha, Photographer
|
Brockton | MA | United States | Posted: 10:26 AM on 10.01.10 |
->> Tom who would sue who? When we upload photos to fb we acknowledge that we own the copyright to the photo and that we have the right to upload it. By extension the user then grants fb license to use the photos based on their (fb) TOS. So fb is in the clear. I really don't see where fb is getting into any liability issues. You could be right but if anyone is going to be sued it will be people who post photos who lacked all the rights that they are granting to fb.
The benefit is that a huge number of the users are friends. I see lots of benefits. Maybe not to photographers, but to the fb users. People post full res files of a birthday party or wedding and others can print or download photos that they want without the original poster having to email different selects to 12 people.
I'm like Jeff just about anything I post online is 600 px or smaller, 72dpi and watermarked. I think that it is funny that the same week that fb announces this Google announces a new photo format that is smaller tighter and lossier(?sp) than jpg to speed up the web.
e |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 10:51 AM on 10.01.10 |
->> Tom, I still see what your getting at concerning a lawsuit here.
You mention a "creep" factor of downloading and printing someone's personal photos. How has that really changed if said "creep" downloads a 800 pixel wide image or a 3000 pixel wide image ?
The creep would be able to generate a higher quality print sure, but so what ? Wheres the lawsuit come in because of that changing ?
I agree with Eric the benefit for a lot of users is being able to share/print photos with friends from casual events. That seems to me useful for the average person because when most people take their camera to a party, its not to make money of the files, produce work their will register or anything like that, its just fun. I'm not going to start using my FB page for wedding proofs for clients by any means, but I'm pretty sure FB wasn't adding this feature for professional photographers in the first place.
End of the day its nothing more than an option to allow higher rez photos if the user wishes to do so.
Smugmug, Flickr, PBase and hundreds of other public photo hosting sites on the net give the user the ability to select the size of files they wish to post and I've never heard of any of those going to hell in a hand basket because they had a full/high rez image option. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:01 PM on 10.01.10 |
->> I do find it interesting the examples they use:
"To see the quality of these pictures, you can view National Geographic's "Top-Rated Your Shot Photos (September)" album or Sports Illustrated's "Football Across America" album. Download high-resolution photos by clicking the "Download" link."
...While SI is allowing users to download high-rez images created by staffers (I guess they're OK with that), National Geographic is allowing viewers to download high-rez versions of images submitted by other other users.
Just goes to show that one should know exactly what they're getting into when submitting images to things like National Geo's "Your Shots." |
|
Mike Huffstatler, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rancho Cucamonga | Ca | United States | Posted: 1:13 PM on 10.01.10 |
->> Maybe I'm missing something here, but as I see it this is not a big deal. Meh. If you don't want high-res images shared/copied/printed/whatever, just continue to post what you do already. I limited anything on FB to 720px. That won't change for me. I use the pre-built action in Lightroom 3 and it works great.
For the average "social" user, this is a pretty cool feature that will increase the usage (read:stickiness) of FB.
I suppose we could twist this into another sky-is-falling conversation, but why? |
|
Brian Dowling, Photographer
|
Los Angeles | CA | USA | Posted: 4:37 PM on 10.01.10 |
| ->> Sounds like good news to me. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
Mike Huffstatler, Photographer, Assistant
|
Rancho Cucamonga | Ca | United States | Posted: 8:01 PM on 10.01.10 |
| ->> @Mark --- yes. |
|
Danny Munson, Photographer
|
San Dimas | Ca | United States | Posted: 8:18 PM on 10.01.10 |
| ->> Mark do you have it set to just friends? |
|
Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
|
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 8:39 PM on 10.01.10 |
->> Mark-
Yes. Would you mind if I used it for my website... For freeeeee? ;) |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 11:47 PM on 10.01.10 |
->> Danny, Yes.
--Mark |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Augusta | GA | USA | Posted: 12:23 AM on 10.02.10 |
| ->> If it's something you care about, don't post it on Facebook. Plain and simple. |
|
Danny Munson, Photographer
|
San Dimas | Ca | United States | Posted: 1:51 AM on 10.02.10 |
->> I figured as much Mark but had to ask. I'm surprised at how many people do make their photos available to everyone.
I guess a direct link does get past the privacy settings. |
|
Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 10:15 AM on 10.02.10 |
| ->> @Danny - It shouldn't surprise you; at the bottom of the web pages of your albums it says, "Share this album with anyone by sending them this public link:" and at the bottom of the web pages of photos you upload it says, "Share this photo with anyone by sending them this public link:" |
|
Michael Myers, Photographer
 |
Miami | Florida | USA | Posted: 12:36 AM on 10.14.10 |
| ->> Just curious - why would anyone expect this place to accept the rights of photographers, when the whole place was started by copying over lots of photos to start the thing off, without permission? Is my memory off, or isn't that how it all got started? If "they" could copy all those photos into the site without permission, why should the be expected to be concerned about others copying images from their site? |
|
Dianna Russell, Photographer
|
Springfield | MO | USA | Posted: 3:51 PM on 10.14.10 |
| ->> Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I try to only post *links* from my PhotoShelter galleries unless it was taken by the Droid X or is a scan of an old family photo. |
|
Mike Zarrilli, Photographer
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 4:44 PM on 10.15.10 |
| ->> Surprised they haven't yet tried to take on or partner with a Shutterfly type company for prints... |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|