Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Sharing Photos on FB Bad Idea

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: for further attention by the team
User_Removed
5 Nov 2012 - 7:59 PM

oh gosh it was a while ago .. not sure I can find the links again now. I will try tomorrow OK?

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
5 Nov 2012 - 7:59 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

User_Removed
6 Nov 2012 - 6:01 AM

I'm sorry, without spending hours on the net I can't find it. It was quite a while ago in New Zealand and I don't think it got much attention outside of NZ. The details (as far as I can remember them) were that a family were killed in a car crash and newspapers published family photos bought from FB before members of the family were informed. In the subsequent outcry over this FB's privacy policy was challenged and upheld. Their T & C's are clear ... any content you post belongs to them and they can and will sell any and all information about you that they can. This is after all fundamentally how they make money and if you think otherwise you are sadly mistaken.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
6 Nov 2012 - 6:40 AM

It seems hard to believe that someone at Facebook is sitting looking for photos that relate to news stories. It is also odd that the family published photos of the crash they didn't know about.

What their T&Cs say is that you own the rights to all images and content. What you do is give a sub-licence - this sub-licence is so they can share content between their and other companies servers. FB have servers all over the world and need to get the user to agree to allow them to share content with your friends in say Japan. They also I think share content with Google and again, need user consent to do this.

If you can find anything that relates to anyone having their content sold by Facebook to a newpaper or anywhere for profit, I would love to read about it.

User_Removed
6 Nov 2012 - 7:14 AM

no you don't understand .. the newspapers were the ones who searched for the photos and then bought them from FB. The press justified their action by saying 'freedom of speech' FB justified their part by saying "we have the right to share content".

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
6 Nov 2012 - 7:28 AM

I guess the newspaper where right in their actions, as I understand it the press can use images if they are newsworthy, but I am surprised they even asked FB!

As for FB - I need to see something about this, I would imagine that with the 100s of 1000s of photos they have access to they would be selling them left right and centre and there would be a massive story about it. Maybe I will find a photo and approach FB and ask if I can buy it. I would also imagine that if they were actively selling photos they would have better protection of those images in place, to stop anyone from simply downloading them, which I am sure if a bigger problem.

Not in anyway saying the NZ story isn't correct - but it's an interesting subject the ownership of content on sites like FB.

KevSB
KevSB  101407 forum posts United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
6 Nov 2012 - 8:33 AM

The press take them from any site often without permission, It has been discussed on here and observed in previous threads, They take the policy that if contacted by the owner they will pay you the standard fee which is not that high and not worth there time arguing about it.

In fact If I remeber last year this was going to be made legal with "Orpan Rights" in the US and im sure would have followed here in the UK.

Any site you upload to is not secure, facebook rules cover themselves for eactly the reason focused outlines above, on the subject of a professional not using it then that would be economical suicide as facebook is proven to be one of the main advertising streams for most company.

I suspect a large preportion of professional photographers get recommendations via facebook
Websites are seen as a secondery form of advertising in most cases in comparison to social networking, alot of forums and discussion sits are also strugling to compete against facebook.

In comparison EPZ Does well compared to most hobby focused forums as others move online to social networking.

User_Removed
6 Nov 2012 - 9:04 AM

Fb maintains that they don't do it, but they do sell just about every other bit of information about you that they can.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
6 Nov 2012 - 9:20 AM


Quote: but they do sell just about every other bit of information about you that they can.


How do you know this?

KevSB
KevSB  101407 forum posts United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
6 Nov 2012 - 9:28 AM


Quote: but they do sell just about every other bit of information about you that they can.


How do you know this?

So does the goverment with your electoral details so nothing new as do half the commercial companys out there

User_Removed
6 Nov 2012 - 9:58 AM


Quote: but they do sell just about every other bit of information about you that they can.


How do you know this?

how do you think they make money?

mikehit
mikehit  56312 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
6 Nov 2012 - 10:04 AM

So its an assumption, then?

User_Removed
6 Nov 2012 - 10:40 AM

I have said it before and I will doubtlessly say it again. If you put photographs into the public domain it is because you want the public to see them.

If you use a photo-sharing site like Facebook, Flickr or even an ePz gallery, it is because you want to share your photographs with lots of other people. So why complain when they get shared even more efficiently than you anticipated.

And, if you use those sites to share your art, you must expect them to try to recoup some of the costs of running the sites that provide you with the sharing service. There is no such thing as a free brunch.

.

Last Modified By User_Removed at 6 Nov 2012 - 10:42 AM
779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
6 Nov 2012 - 10:49 AM


Quote: how do you think they make money?

Through advertising - which if you change your settings to "no" in the two relivant places, they don't use your information.

But I don't think they make money from selling my photos or other content to newspapers or other people or organisations.

Pete
Pete Site Moderator 1318442 forum postsPete vcard ePz Advertiser England96 Constructive Critique Points
6 Nov 2012 - 10:49 AM


Quote: If you use a photo-sharing site like Facebook, Flickr or even an ePz gallery, it is because you want to share your photographs with lots of other people. So why complain when they get shared even more efficiently than you anticipated.

That's the whole philosophy with pinterest and google + but in both cases your large works soon appears in other profiles and looks almost like they created it. So they become the person using your work (at higher resolution) to elevate their position.
People start to follow them because they are "great" - many now call themselves curators. It may create more awareness for your work if managed but managing it could also be a nightmare.

We made a concious decision to block one popular site "borrowing" images as we saw the large versions appearing on their site whereas our connection with facebook is that only small thumbs are released. The clicker has to view full image on ePHOTOzine where it's clear who the content belongs to.

779HOB
779HOB  21018 forum posts United Kingdom
6 Nov 2012 - 10:56 AM


Quote: The clicker has to view full image on ePHOTOzine where it's clear who the content belongs to.

Only I am assuming if they read the sites T&Cs - or does it say it on the photo page too? I haven't noticed it.

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: for further attention by the team