Intellectual Property issue on facebook last night

[WelshBloke]

Facebook is quite clear about infringement of intellectual property rights.

Their contract does not trump federal law.

Thats just making sure that you own the data that you are trying to share in the first place.

 

[Dumac]

Facebook is quite clear about infringement of intellectual property rights.

Their contract does not trump federal law.

I'm pretty sure that is for more serious matters like commercialized music and film, not a family photo taken on your iPhone.

 

[Texashiker]

Yeah it does, it was pretty self-explanatory.

By posting something to a sharing service you are agreeing to share the data. As long as you own the data to start with and can give permission for it to be shared then its all good. After you have shared it you have little (if any) control over what happens to it.

Negative.

Granting a site non-exclusive permission is a lot different then a user redistributing that material.

Why do you think youtube has been sued so many times?

Here it is in black and white

http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Protecting Other People's Rights

We respect other people's rights, and expect you to do the same.

You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law.

There it is, in the terms of service, users agree not to post material they do not have the rights to.

 

[waggy]

Facebook is quite clear about infringement of intellectual property rights.

Their contract does not trump federal law.

And you give up the rights to private photos when you sign up for facebook. That is so that you don't take pictures of say ansel adams and post them. then you are breaking IP rights

 

[sixone]

Yeah it does, it was pretty self-explanatory.

By posting something to a sharing service you are agreeing to share the data. As long as you own the data to start with and can give permission for it to be shared then its all good. After you have shared it you have little (if any) control over what happens to it.

Check out the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Federal law says you do.

 

[WelshBloke]

Negative.

Granting a site non-exclusive permission is a lot different then a user redistributing that material.

Why do you think youtube has been sued so many times?

Because the people posting stuff on youtube dont own the material in the first place so cant agree to share it.

 

[Ns1]

And you give up the rights to private photos when you sign up for facebook. That is so that you don't take pictures of say ansel adams and post them. then you are breaking IP rights

this.

Negative.

Granting a site non-exclusive permission is a lot different then a user redistributing that material.

Why do you think youtube has been sued so many times?

Here it is in black and white

http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms



There it is, in the terms of service, users agree not to post material they do not have the rights to.

Exactly, and when you post pictures using public setting you are giving up those rights, meaning the public has rights to that shit.

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).

Therefore,

You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law.

404 someone else's rights not violated

 

[WelshBloke]

Check out the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Federal law says you do.

Whats the DMCA got to do with you agreeing to share your stuff?

 

[sixone]

Because the people posting stuff on youtube dont own the material in the first place so cant agree to share it.

BINGO

A random FB user can't legally post other people's photos for exactly the same reason.

 

[WelshBloke]

And you give up the rights to private photos when you sign up for facebook. That is so that you don't take pictures of say ansel adams and post them. then you are breaking IP rights

I think you can take picture of pictures as long as the picture is not the only thing in the picture.

 

[Texashiker]

Exactly, and when you post pictures using public setting you are giving up those rights

Wow, just wow.

Nowhere does it say in the facebook terms of service that you give up your Intellectual Property rights.

Where is jeebus when you need him?

 

[KeithTalent]

This thread is seriously lacking in facepalm pics.

KT

 

[sixone]

Exactly, and when you post pictures using public setting you are giving up those rights, meaning the public has rights to that shit.

Educate yourself on copyright law. Publishing an image does not change your ownership of the image.

 

[WelshBloke]

BINGO

A random FB user can't legally post other people's photos for exactly the same reason.

But as has been said, when you post a picture on facebook you are giving everyone else permission to use that photo.

 

[Ns1]

Wow, just wow.

Nowhere does it say in the facebook terms of service that you give up your Intellectual Property rights.

Where is jeebus when you need him?

You and I differ on the meaning of "Use", so if you got a problem take it to the courts and have them figure it out. Until then, you can call the waaaaaaaaaaaaambulance regarding your step daughter's pictures.

 

[sixone]

But as has been said, when you post a picture on facebook you are giving everyone else permission to use that photo.

It may have been said, but federal law says otherwise.

 

[Dumac]

Negative.

Granting a site non-exclusive permission is a lot different then a user redistributing that material.

Why do you think youtube has been sued so many times?

Here it is in black and white

http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms



There it is, in the terms of service, users agree not to post material they do not have the rights to.

You are missing the (supposed) point.

Youtube is different. Company A posts a video on THEIR youtube channel, but they aren't 'sharing' the video and giving the rights to everyone else. Company A makes money on the hits from their video, since you have to go through their channel.

On facebook, when you post a picture you make it public, giving the rights of use to everyone else. You then give up the rights, and I can go copy and repost the picture.

 

[Dumac]

It may have been said, but federal law says otherwise.

Take them to court over a picture of aunt sally that you don't want cousin stacy sharing

 

[waggy]

all i got to say the IQ of a few posters is proven to be where i thought they were.. that is to say FUCKING LOW.

I think you can take picture of pictures as long as the picture is not the only thing in the picture.

I seem to recall a lawsuit over something like this. someone took pictures of a picture and tried to sale it. they got busted for IP thieft. they claimed they can sell the picture they took.

IF i have a hanging of a Adams picture in the background (i had a few of them) and i take a picture of my daughter and its in the background im fine. IF i crop it so thats all it is i can't.

 

[WelshBloke]

It may have been said, but federal law says otherwise.

*sigh* Where does it say that?

Remember we are talking about facebook. When you post something publicly there you are agreeing to share that photo and agreeing to let others use that photo.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It may have been said, but federal law says otherwise.

Federal law does not say otherwise. The OP has for all purposes sold the rights to use the picture to Facebook in exchange for the use of their servers to store said photo. As part of the condition of that sale, FB has the rights to confer those rights to other people. Facebook has decided to confer those rights on everyone.
Nothing in Federal Law states that you can't sell the rights to your photo, or that you can't sell the rights to sell the rights to your photo. Which is what has happened here.

 

[Texashiker]

On facebook, when you post a picture you make it public, giving the rights of use to everyone else. You then give up the rights, and I can go copy and repost the picture.

So because someone like lady gaga post a pic on facebook, she gives up the rights to the picture?

I can then take the picture, put it on a tee-shirt and sell the shirt?

Federal law does not say otherwise. The OP has for all purposes sold the rights to use the picture to Facebook in exchange for the use of their servers to store said photo. As part of the condition of that sale, FB has the rights to confer those rights to other people. Facebook has decided to confer those rights on everyone.

Wow, just wow. Where did you come up with that?

 

[KeithTalent]

Someone is selling your pictures for profit? :hmm:

KT

 

[jagec]

Educate yourself on copyright law. Publishing an image does not change your ownership of the image.

And other people reposting the image doesn't change your ownership of it either.

When you post an image on Facebook (publicly), you explicitly grant other people the right to reuse that image. It's in the TOS. That contract is A-OK under federal law. This means that other people reusing the image are NOT breaking any laws.

What does "ownership" have anything to do with the matter?

What is so hard to understand about this?

 

[Dumac]

So because someone like lady gaga post a pic on facebook, she gives up the rights to the picture?

I can then take the picture, put it on a tee-shirt and sell the shirt?

Is your cousin selling shirts with your family photo? Where do I sign up?