Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I participate in several Facebook picture groups. And one particularly contentious hot topic is that of crediting pictures. There are two very clear and distinct camps, with any sort of middle ground being pretty much nonexistent.
On one side, you have those who believe that if it's online, it's fair game and free to pick up and use, regardless of source or original ownership. And if it's a good picture, gives the poster something of an ego boost in the form of 'likes', 'shares', and comments. That's the whole point of participating in a message group. Not the 'other' persons fault that they assumed it was 'your' picture, even though it shouldn't be stated as much; demanding that pictures be credited is pedantic, troublemaking negativity. Anyone who even watermarks their pictures is a loser and definitely will NOT get a 'like', even if it otherwise is a great shot.
And then on the other, you have those who say "hold on a sec. What gives you the right to plagiarize someone elses work?" If you want to share someone elses picture, it needs to be said that it's someone elses picture. Otherwise you are getting recognition and credit that you really don't deserve. At best, it's dishonest and an affront to their efforts. And at worst, in breach of intellectual property and copyright, which is very real and some people have been sued because of it. And if you don't have anything original to contribute, then too bad. Go take some of your own pictures.
Take a look at the facebook tos, and the tos of just about any place that you may post a photo or words. You give facebook the unilateral right to use your photo any way they want.
The concept of someone being outraged in such an environment shows just how un-thinking people are. In essence, facebook has ALREADY stolen the copyright through their tos wording. Whinging about the fleas on the fur of a rabid dog shows a distinct lack of critical thinking skills.
You give facebook the unilateral right to use your photo any way they want.
Harry it's cover your ass language, you can't blame them in this sue happy world. I have yet to see an example of any of these services using the images outside of the service.
I have similar wording on my own TOS for a forum and in my case I don't allow users to delete images. Removing the images can destroy the value of the discussion and that is not fair to others that may have participated.
What I find funnier is the people who think their photos have any significant value. I'm an amateur photographer. Nothing special, but fairly decent in terms of landscape photography. Looking at photos people put online always boosts my own ego regarding photography. I have some of my photos up on a site called pbase, and I welcome people to use them if they want. BFD.
Harry it's cover your ass language, you can't blame them in this sue happy world. I have yet to see an example of any of these services using the images outside of the service.
I have similar wording on my own TOS for a forum and in my case I don't allow users to delete images. Removing the images can destroy the value of the discussion and that is not fair to others that may have participated.
I disagree with you. It masquerades as CYA language, and there may not be egregious offenses yet, but as you note "Removing the images can destroy the value " which means A. There is value, and B. you are benefiting from it in some manner. If you want to do that, and your users agree, that is fine. I post to C-D mostly as my "tithe" to society, and even if my words were extracted and used for profit I wouldn't care. I do NOT post a lot of material, such as my poetry and creative writing and many photos and images of my artwork. Anyone who posts a poem online is immediately disqualified from publication in any journal, etc.
There will eventually be valid reasons to sue, such as people accidentally posting an idea worth millions and a fight over rights, quoted material that is under close copyright or trademark restrictions, or repeated errors in judgment like the guy working for Apple who allowed his teen daughter to post a photo of a new phone when he was under a non-disclosure agreement.
The intellectual property rights that facebook has amassed simply by the wording of their tos is STAGGERING. The ability of facebook to hire lawyers to defend that is STAGGERING.
It is entirely possible to write a tos so that the creators maintain their intellectual property rights. I fought successfully in a different online forum for such a change. Wording can be as simple as "User grants X rights to reproduce images, writing, and all other material uploaded for use in this forum, but otherwise retains all rights to said work. User agrees to hold harmless X in the event of unauthorized plagiarism of the material presented in the forum by any third party."
When you give away your rights, you are depending upon the kindness of strangers. Good luck with that.
I disagree with you. It masquerades as CYA language, and there may not be egregious offenses yet, but as you note "Removing the images can destroy the value " which means A. There is value, and B. you are benefiting from it in some manner.
The users that utilize my service typically upload images to get information. Everyone benefits and if ten years down the road someone else comes across that information they will benefit from it to. If I allow them to delete images or the text it will destroy the continuity of not only the information they have posted but what others have posted.
The users that utilize my service typically upload images to get information. Everyone benefits and if ten years down the road someone else comes across that information they will benefit from it to. If I allow them to delete images or the text it will destroy the continuity of not only the information they have posted but what others have posted.
I understand. Holding the intellectual property within the confines of the forum or whatever is not a particular issue, at least with me. If, however, you were to sell rights to all the data on your forum to a third party, and that value came from the free contributions of users, I might have a sense of unease and lack of recompense. If you ripped off a unique idea from one of the users and profited from it, I wouldn't send you a Christmas card.
However, the small businesses aren't a big deal unless tehy get sold to larger ones. A lot of people use services like proboards as hosts, and a lot of people upload to facebook, and they are giving a blanket permission to rip them off.
LOL that the discussion here follows the same concerns the OP had....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
