Has Facebook increased desire for Photographs?

My interpretation is that the clauses in the agreement are there because in each and every country that Facebook is available in, they are publishing our work. Therefore, in some areas they actually need specicfic permission to do so, so the permission to publish refers to that.

We don't lose the copyright and Facebook doesn't have the right to do anything they like with any image.

If they did that sort of thing, would there not be endless lawsuits in process as we speak, splashed across all the media in full detail?

The Facebook picture copyright issue has been going round and round for years now. Basically they say they aren't going to nick your photographs - and every time they rewrite their rules about this there's a huge storm of protest...

They need to make money somehow, which is why they keep changing privacy settings and so on, but when you look at how badly they mangle any uploaded pictures, you aren't going to be seeing your holiday snaps on a billboard!


Now the situation with Twitter (twatter) is another matter - as a recent (current?) legal case involving pictures from the Haiti Earthquake showed...

I cannot fathom the point of Twitter at all, unless you're doing something exciting like the Vulcan to the Sky team (who tweet regularly during airshow season, which puts paid to any will-she-won't-she talk about whether the Vulcan will be present or not). For the 99% of people who aren't delivering a new ship or maintaining a historic aircraft it's a bit pointless!

From what I can see, their main market is drunken teenagers and twenty-somethings, so I don't think lawsuits are very likely.

G

I don't think the Facebook circles I move in fit that profile George, or at least I hope not...it really does depend on your particular group of friends.

Oh the halcyon days.

I did say the MAIN market! I am quite sure the people in your circle are models of decorum - and possibly a little older than twenty-something.

G

Re using your photo's - it's pretty standard to need a model release for anyone who can be identified in photo's. Regardless if they try to take rights (which I don't think they are) they are in for a real shit storm if they start printing photo's of people without their consent!

It doesn't really work that way.

If it's in a public space you can photograph anyone you want.
They can basically only object if they are pictured in such a way or used in a commercial way that might be negative for them (their image/status).

Martin Parr doesn't bother with model release forms (apparently). The point made was if you are selling for stock or similar they want to know the image can be used "for any purpose". Your model may be hacked off about being PP'd into a nazi and used as an advert. (There again he can just sign a copy of the photo and give it to them as compensation and I'm sure the problem goes away).

Parr has some fairly gritty collections and if he doesn't have a problem, I'm pretty sure I won't.

George is this what you call the Facebook generation?
link
link

Here are some good ones
link
- just finished eating raw chicken breast, no sweat. looks like somebody owes me $20.
-- you're gonna die dude, salmonella for sure.
--- I ate chicken, not salmon, dude.

First I laughed.
Then I wept.
There really is little hope for the race.

G

I haven't laughed so hard for a while. You have to laugh, else you'd cry...

Yeah you're right George and Robbie, I don't think there is much hope either...

Have a look at the Failbook site too - similarly stupid posts contributed by users who've seen them.

I'm not sure if it says something that most of the really idiotic ones seem to be from the USA...