To follow up on our Flickr piece, there is a lot of buzz today on protecting yourself on Facebook by placing a “Facebook Privacy Notice” on your Facebook Timeline. So tons of people are doing that. After all, they read it on the Internet, so it must be true. It’s a complete hoax. Here is a story from the NY Daily News today. Placing this notice does nothing, other than make some prankster amazed at how viral it’s become and how gullible people can be.
We love that the notice misspells the International “Berne Convention”, spelling it the “Berner Convention”. You also can’t copyright your personal information as this thing claims. If you read our book, you know that it needs to be a creative output or creation. Simple information, names, titles, personal data, and so on generally can not be copyrighted.
What you are beholding to, is Facebook’s Terms of Service (TOS) which you can read below. The red is our highlighting. Reading this is why Jack rarely (like one time) places any photos on Facebook.
======================================================================================================================================================
FACEBOOK POLICY
Sharing Your Content and Information
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:
- 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.
- 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).
- When you use an application, the application may ask for your permission to access your content and information as well as content and information that others have shared with you. We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information. (To learn more about Platform, including how you can control what information other people may share with applications, read our Data Use Policy and Platform Page.)
- When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
- We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).
#1 by Daniel Ernst on November 27, 2012 - 11:56 am
I never post photos on Facebook, but what are my rights when someone grabs a photo (which I’ve more than likely registered with the USCO) from my website, and posts it on their Facebook page, even if they give me credit and it has my watermark, and has my info in the metadata? And what if I don’t even know it has happened? What if it’s a minor (does that make a difference)? I’m just wondering if Facebook is somehow inadvertently getting any of my rights.
#2 by Jack and Ed on November 27, 2012 - 3:43 pm
A. If its registered you convey only the usage that you have given to Facebook period. Theoretically you have grounds for an infringement action. Whether it is cost effective is of course another issue.
B. No one has the right to employ your image in violation of your “selected” Facebook “grant” of rights.
#3 by Don Schaefer on November 28, 2012 - 2:28 pm
Thanks for this. In some US states it has been suggested to me there are laws that say this passive type of contract can be rescinded by a user if both parties did not negotiate the usage “in person”. I’m not a lawyer so please pardon my vague reference. Of course, in the FB case, it would be senseless to try this approach.
I would appreciate any kind of followup stories on this “passive” transfer of rights, in any instance.
You can find many instances of rights grabbing T/C’s ( and good T/C’s ) on our website.
Thanks for all your great work, Jack and Ed.
#4 by Jack and Ed on November 28, 2012 - 3:23 pm
Don,
This is why photographers shouldn’t play lawyer, not even on TV.
Passive rights transfers are typically something like “in the event the book is not actually on retail store shelves by November 22, 2013, all rights to same shall revert to author” or “Upon Joe’s death, the title to the 1988 Olds Cutless currently owned by Joe shall be immediately transferred to Ed if he is alive,by the Executor of Joe’s estate”
It is “passive” in the sense that neither party need do anything on their own upon the happening or non-happening of an event. When you sign on to Facebook, you agree to their TOS. When you open Photoshop, you agree to their terms and conditions, like having it only on two computers. Facebook or Adobe doesn’t have to be face to face with you when you agree.
#5 by Matt Timmons on November 28, 2012 - 6:57 pm
To somewhat clarify, if “big company” like McDonald’s sees a photo from a Facebook user that they want to use, all they do is make a deal with Facebook and the photo is theirs?
What if I wan’t to use a photo of a supermodel for my blog or my store? Can I just go onto Facebook and take one from of a model’s page and I’m home free? Do I pay Facebook for an ad and I’m free use whoever’s photos I feel like?
These are the basic types questions I think most people are concerned with having their images taken. I haven’t noticed any of the big businesses or personalities on FB, including some of the biggest photographers in the world, taking down their photos so no one must be very concerned with it. I reckon the large scale networking/free advertising platform that FB is, is worth more to have than someone stealing a low resolution image. Am I on the right thought process on this?
#6 by Carol Klein on May 17, 2013 - 7:29 pm
Just saw this shared by a photographer on Facebook — “A new law was recently passed, saying that photos without metadata and watermarks are fair game for anyone who wants to use them. Facebook is stripping the metadata from our photos when they are uploaded, making it possible to steal our images if no watermark is present. Protect yourselves.
I may start fazing Facebook out – they have no right to remove information from my photos that state that I am the owner of the image. ”
It doesn’t mention registering the photos just watermarks & metadata. Any thoughts? Any FACTS I can share or post?
#7 by Edward C. Greenberg on May 20, 2013 - 1:55 pm
To our knowledge, no change in the copyright law has been made relevant to your question. Stripping metadata and/or removal of any identifiers may serve as evidence of willful copyright infringement.
Facebook terms of service are theirs and theirs alone. Facebook does not set copyright law. The terms of service may or man not permit such stripping and that is why we urge everyone who reads or listens to READ the terms of service applicable to any/all social media sites.
Ed – as a lawyer – is not a fan of posting anything remotely meaningful on Facebook. Jack -as a photographer – knows…..