Periodicals posting your photos on facebook without permission

[Lone Star]

on facebook and sometimes TGR, I like to post fun photos of my friends skiing. I post my favorite pics that I don't intend to save for submitting to print publication. It makes me sad when the same publications--ones I might submit my best shots to-- post those photos on their websites or feeds without my permission. what's my best recourse as a guy who uses a camera for fun but who is starting to see an increasing chunk of his income come from photography? I don't want to burn bridges with the same periodicals which might be considering my images for print, but I don't want to be taken advantage of, either.

[TahoeJ]

Powder photo of the day?

[smmokan]

I've dealt with something similar multiple times over the last couple of years. A certain weather forecaster that frequents TGR has "borrowed" my images multiple times for his website and FB feed, and just last month I found three of my pictures in a local magazine.... all without my knowledge and definitely not my permission.

After the initial shock and anger of finding out my pictures had been stolen, I decided to be civil and send them an email instead of confronting them on FB or somewhere else public. In all cases, things were worked out like human beings, although to be honest I think only one of the offenders actually understood the implications of stealing images. That one person offered to send me a care package of schwag from their business- the others either just agreed to take the picture down or never to do it again.

So after all that, I guess my recommendation is to just email them privately and see what happens. I think it all depends on how the picture is being used.

[robgoose]

Not sure what the fine print for TGR is, but posting to FB grants FB a broad and "transferable" license (especially when he post is public). At the very least, that complicates the legal issues. Have you considered "watermarking" the pics?

[supermodel159]

^^ I think that is right on. FB has some BS where whatever you post, your are basically giving FB rights to the image/video. I had a bunch of photos taken from some Russians that were being used in tourism sites all over. That was my main reason for getting off FB.

[Fuzz]

FB, the company, having the rights to use your pictures is very different from users of FB having any rights to use your pictures.

[TahoeJ]

FB, the company, having the rights to use your pictures is very different from users of FB having any rights to use your pictures.

This.

1234

[teledad]

TGR terms of use here: http://www.tetongravity.com/terms-of-use

Look particularly at the rights grants (to both TGR and other users) under CONTENT AND SUBSCRIBER CONTENT. Watermarks are probably a good idea if you're concerned about reuse.

[WaistDeepGroomers]

TGR terms of use here: http://www.tetongravity.com/terms-of-use

Look particularly at the rights grants (to both TGR and other users) under CONTENT AND SUBSCRIBER CONTENT. Watermarks are probably a good idea if you're concerned about reuse.

I'll just chime in here and say that at least for my part, I'm slowly putting together a bit of an SOP for how we handle forum users' photos, in particular. From my end, I'll generally only use a photo from the forums to promote a person's post (i.e., use a photo as cover photo for homepage/facebook/social) if it's directly promoting that post and is sending traffic immediately back to that thread. On social, particular Instagram & Facebook, we have enough room to grant photo credit in the social post itself (Twitter not so much). I know our terms of use grant us some greater leeway than that, but to be fair to all of you, that's the MO I'm trying to operate under. If people have feelings otherwise, let me know, as it's still a work in progress. But at the bare, bare minimum, I'll credit the source and link back to the post with the original photo.

Of course, I was the recipient of one of those closed-door emails this summer for doing a real sloppy job on a particular post highlighting a bike race in Montana, which was a bit of a gut check for me. But yeah, since I'm hoping to highlight more forum content, it'd be great to get a sense of what kind of credit mags feel they deserve, or what usage is appropriate. Cheers.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Time to come up with a snazzy watermark. And put it in the middle, or somewhere clever. If you put it at the bottom it can just get cropped off.

[Lonnie]

I'll just chime in here and say that at least for my part, I'm slowly putting together a bit of an SOP for how we handle forum users' photos, in particular. From my end, I'll generally only use a photo from the forums to promote a person's post (i.e., use a photo as cover photo for homepage/facebook/social) if it's directly promoting that post and is sending traffic immediately back to that thread. On social, particular Instagram & Facebook, we have enough room to grant photo credit in the social post itself (Twitter not so much). I know our terms of use grant us some greater leeway than that, but to be fair to all of you, that's the MO I'm trying to operate under. If people have feelings otherwise, let me know, as it's still a work in progress. But at the bare, bare minimum, I'll credit the source and link back to the post with the original photo.

Of course, I was the recipient of one of those closed-door emails this summer for doing a real sloppy job on a particular post highlighting a bike race in Montana, which was a bit of a gut check for me. But yeah, since I'm hoping to highlight more forum content, it'd be great to get a sense of what kind of credit mags feel they deserve, or what usage is appropriate. Cheers.

In my mind, as a photographer, there is a big difference in a site using a photo that was uploaded to their servers, vs one that was linked to from someone else's server. In case #1, it becomes "user content" as described in the TOC's and in Case #2, it does not.

That's why I'll never upload any photos to anyone else's servers unless they allow me to retain full control of the image.

[WaistDeepGroomers]

In my mind, as a photographer, there is a big difference in a site using a photo that was uploaded to their servers, vs one that was linked to from someone else's server. In case #1, it becomes "user content" as described in the TOC's and in Case #2, it does not.

That's why I'll never upload any photos to anyone else's servers unless they allow me to retain full control of the image.

With that in mind, what's your general reaction to me posting a Facebook image you posted originally in the forums and driving traffic back to your thread (after crediting you on the FB post)? May be more case by case considering whether or not people are looking for more eyes on their work/content, but what's your feeling?

[Lonnie]

With that in mind, what's your general reaction to me posting a Facebook image you posted originally in the forums and driving traffic back to your thread (after crediting you on the FB post)? May be more case by case considering whether or not people are looking for more eyes on their work/content, but what's your feeling?

I don't like it. But with that being said, I don't post any images directly to facebook. The reason is, if you post images directly to FB, if you read their TOC's you grant them a license to use/publish them (which isn't uncommon). That's why I will only post links to my off FB (and TGR in this case) images. I don't want to give FB a license to my images. By TGR re-posting my images to FB, they are, by default, granting FB a license to my images that I didn't authorize.

When I post an image to TGR by using the "add attachment" button then the phrase in TGR's TOC's that states, " By submitting the User Content to us, you hereby grant to us a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify, display, and perform all or any portion of the User Content in connection with the Site and our (and our affiliates and successors’) business, including without limitation, for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Site (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. " applies. However, in my mind by linking to an offsite (off TGR) image link doesn't trigger the above phrase/license because the content isn't actually being uploaded to TGR's servers. That's the difference.

The main hangup with me in TGR's TOC's is the word "perpetual".

[snapt]

That sucks, plain and simple. I manage our brands photo talent and find a lot of folks via FB and IG to work with. I would NEVER EVER consider reusing their work without consent, let alone without compensating them. It sucks that its driven folks from using social media as it is such a great tool for getting noticed and making some monies of your work.

[Lonnie]

Ironically, this happened to me, and I just found out about it this week (by running a google image search on one of my photos).

There was a photo site that I (used) to post to. I found that the site had downloaded and reposted one of my images to both their twitter feed and facebook page (without alerting me to their re-posting of the photos (via IM or E-mail). In their TOC's it give the owners permission to publish, maintain and store all your message content, including images, on any of their sites or servers. I understand that and consented to that use (basically it allows users to quote me and my posts and allow the images to appear in those reposts). However, Facebook and twitter is not their site nor server and as such, this use falls outside of their TOC's (at least as I read them). Whenever I rarely posted images there, I always linked them from my own site, and never uploaded them to their servers. In order for them to repost them to FB and twitter, they had do download them locally and re-upload them to FB and twitter.

My issue here is wtih Facebook's TOS, "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."

I have not granted Facebook permission to my intellectual property rights. I do not want to grant them access to my intellectual property rights, that's why I never (well rarely) post my "real" images on FB. By this 3rd party site posting my images to FB without my permission, they have, in effect, done that for me.

When I confronted them with this, what was their response? They suspended my account on their forum. The deleted the FB post, and the tweet is now gone (but I don't know if they took it down or if it was because I filed a DCMA takedown with twitter.)

[WaistDeepGroomers]

Ironically, this happened to me, and I just found out about it this week (by running a google image search on one of my photos).

There was a photo site that I (used) to post to. I found that the site had downloaded and reposted one of my images to both their twitter feed and facebook page (without alerting me to their re-posting of the photos (via IM or E-mail). In their TOC's it give the owners permission to publish, maintain and store all your message content, including images, on any of their sites or servers. I understand that and consented to that use (basically it allows users to quote me and my posts and allow the images to appear in those reposts). However, Facebook and twitter is not their site nor server and as such, this use falls outside of their TOC's (at least as I read them). Whenever I rarely posted images there, I always linked them from my own site, and never uploaded them to their servers. In order for them to repost them to FB and twitter, they had do download them locally and re-upload them to FB and twitter.

My issue here is wtih Facebook's TOS, "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."

I have not granted Facebook permission to my intellectual property rights. I do not want to grant them access to my intellectual property rights, that's why I never (well rarely) post my "real" images on FB. By this 3rd party site posting my images to FB without my permission, they have, in effect, done that for me.

When I confronted them with this, what was their response? They suspended my account on their forum. The deleted the FB post, and the tweet is now gone (but I don't know if they took it down or if it was because I filed a DCMA takedown with twitter.)

Lonnie sent me a message to remind me about responding to this, thank you for doing so. I feel like there's two SOP protocols on my/TGR's end that I'd want to iron out in this respect:

Regarding Facebook: We normally post a physical photo in addition to the link itself... like this: https://www.facebook.com/tetongravit...type=1&theater

However, we could also just post the link, which pulls up the first photo in the article, but which I don't believe creates a photo on Facebook in the process. I.e.:



Understanding Facebook's TOC's, if I got permission to post your TR, or whatever thread it is, to Facebook, how would an SOP strike you where I only post to FB in the 2nd form, vs. creating an actual photo+post that goes into our photo feed?

Regarding TGR's TOC: Maybe the lawyers out there could confirm, but would it be an appropriate form of consent for me to send you a PM, say "I'd like to highlight your thread, use that first photo to make a cover image for our homepage, and post a link to the thread on FB/Twitter," have you say yes, and then that qualify as written permission?

Powder photo of the day?

Those guys get paid a little bit for each of those shots. Nothing amazing, but given Dave Reddick's integrity/longevity/reputation, there'd be no way he'd condone all those guys getting ripped off for their shots IMO.

[Lone Star]

I don't get the impression that anybody is trying to rip off photographers, as much as it is sloppiness on the part of the publications. Perhaps the social media angle is tackled by marketing folks while the print content is overseen by photo editors?

if I got permission to post your TR, or whatever thread it is, to Facebook, how would an SOP strike you where I only post to FB in the 2nd form, vs. creating an actual photo+post that goes into our photo feed?

I think you drew out the perfect situation where I'd consider the former to be totally acceptable and the latter a little questionable---assuming you hadn't explicitly asked for permission.