Student sues school district for using photo without her permission.

[Nintendesert]

So when someone posts something on Facebook they lose their copyright to that picture?

 

[shortylickens]

So when someone posts something on Facebook they lose their copyright to that picture?

You cant claim someone elses stuff as your own, but it can be reposted elsewhere.

 

[Lithium381]

so sad for her that she suffered emotional trauma and maybe helped some neckbearded 16 year old spray some DNA. . . but I don't see this as an issue... this is the consequence of social media. i have very few friends on facebook and have privacy set to friends only. .. doesn't mean someone can't snap a picture of me in public and throw it up for the world to see..

 

[shortylickens]

It'd be a nice pic if her face wasn't in it.

I'd leave a map of Hawaii on her forehead.

 

[Nintendesert]

You cant claim someone elses stuff as your own, but it can be reposted elsewhere.

Hmm, I see.

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:

1. 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.
2. 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).
3. 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.)
4. 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).
5. 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).

Interesting set of rules, she would follow under number 4. I'm not sure how legally binding these kinds of rules are however. I'm not familiar with any recent rulings in these regards.

Good luck to her, hopefully she wins so she can get plastic surgery.

 

[colonelciller]

seems like the school was using the image as an example of what not to do... how not to make a fool of yourself, etc.

so, some pervy old dude in the school computer lab tracked down a bikini photo from an ex student and decided it would be great to show her image in school...

I'm thinking she is going to win... not 2 million, but old perv using her bikini pic as an example of what not to do and showing it to her peers is unprofessional and crossing a few too many lines to be acceptable.


facebooks TOS is completely irrelevant
this is not to say that she wasn't stupid to have posted it... that's another issue unrelated to the IT perv who used it without permission and Used it in a way that could be interpreted as mockery

 

[olds]

Fair use? Let's wait for sixone to weigh in, she's an expert.

 

[olds]

I'd leave a map of Hawaii on her forehead.

Wouldn't it more likely be the virgin islands?

 

[The Boston Dangler]

the blonde reporter is yummy

 

[bigpimpatl]

seems like the school was using the image as an example of what not to do... how not to make a fool of yourself, etc.

so, some pervy old dude in the school computer lab tracked down a bikini photo from an ex student and decided it would be great to show her image in school...

I'm thinking she is going to win... not 2 million, but old perv using her bikini pic as an example of what not to do and showing it to her peers is unprofessional and crossing a few too many lines to be acceptable.


facebooks TOS is completely irrelevant
this is not to say that she wasn't stupid to have posted it... that's another issue unrelated to the IT perv who used it without permission and Used it in a way that could be interpreted as mockery

The school didn't need permission from the girl for the pic. It was a public picture. The school didn't break any constitutional law because it didn't acquire the pic via illegal or questionable means. It was there for everyone to see.

And, we don't know if the administrator actually told the students who said ex-student was. I highly doubt he did, though I could be wrong.

 

[ImpulsE69]

The more interesting story on that page is the one about Martha Stewart admitting to having a threesome and sexting.

 

[MontyAC]

Isn't Martha Stewart like 70 years old?

 

[ch33zw1z]

derp. don't share it with everyone. She won a free lesson in life. Maybe she'll not share it with everyone next time.

 

[sao123]

everyone respects IP rights... until they belong to an individual, not a corp.

you might as well have said, by printing your photos at the walmart center, you agree that any walmart afiliate may take your photos and use them for any purpose without compensation.
if this were a business whos photo was uploaded aws public, and harvest and used by another entity... this would be open shut in favor of the IP holder.

How about facebook set up compensation between harvester, and content owner?
Pure crap this is.

 

[Corporate Thug]

everyone respects IP rights... until they belong to an individual, not a corp.

you might as well have said, by printing your photos at the walmart center, you agree that any walmart afiliate may take your photos and use them for any purpose without compensation.
if this were a business whos photo was uploaded aws public, and harvest and used by another entity... this would be open shut in favor of the IP holder.

How about facebook set up compensation between harvester, and content owner?
Pure crap this is.

getting photos developed = expectation of privacy between customer and store
putting pictures on public medium = no expectation of privacy.

 

[sao123]

getting photos developed = expectation of privacy between customer and store
putting pictures on public medium = no expectation of privacy.

Im not talking about privacy... im talking about ownership and control of content. My photos are my photo's regardless of the medium I placed them on.

 

[SagaLore]

I got a viagra ad just before the actual vid.

 

[lxskllr]

Im not talking about privacy... im talking about ownership and control of content. My photos are my photo's regardless of the medium I placed them on.

Not if you put them somewhere that says otherwise. That's like developing software, putting a BSD license on it, and then complaining about someone using it.

 

[Zenmervolt]

You cant claim someone elses stuff as your own, but it can be reposted elsewhere.

That's not correct.

Facebook's privacy explanation, specifically, statement 4 reads simply:

4. 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).

It will not be read as granting automatic permission for any use under copyright law. It is merely describing the fact that content listed as "public" is available for viewing to the general public and is not restricted to friends only. At most, it's operating to indemnify Facebook from liability for allowing people access to the content. It's not going to be read as automatically creating a universal license to anyone who happens upon the photograph.

HOWEVER, the use of the photograph in question seems clearly to fall within
the "fair use" exception listed under 17 U.S.C. § 107, which allows for use in teaching, as well as in scholarship and commentary (among other allowable uses that likely couldn't apply here).

Here, the school is going to be protected by 17 U.S.C. § 107, not by any portion of the Facebook privacy settings description.

It's worth noting though, that not all use is fair use and it would not be permissible, for example, for the school to use the photograph in publicity photographs or other materials promoting the school.

ZV

 

[Slew Foot]

Because he's a scum-sucking, bottom feeding lawyer. That's reason enough. ALL lawyers should be anally raped...just for being lawyers.

Country would be better off if we killed off all the lawyers

 

[ImpulsE69]

Country would be better off if we killed off all the lawyers

But then who would protect all those poor companies??

 

[SlickSnake]

She is at fault for posting it and leaving her Facebook setting set to public.

A lawyer will try to twist this into her being a victim for being humiliated and made an example of. But it didn't humiliate her for the news to publish her picture a second time, because she thought she was not being used as an example of what not to do.

However, what the news actually did was also use her picture as an example of what not to do, even though they had her permission to use it. See the point I am making here? If she really didn't want to be made an example of the second time, then she never would have allowed her picture to be reused on the news. It makes her look hypocritical at best, and a gold digger at worst.

Now, if the picture was stolen from her somehow, or it was originally taken by someone else without her permission, she might have a case. Under the circumstances, she is completely responsible for this picture being published by her, and unless she has a copyright securing the public use of it, she is out of luck.

The copyright on even a family picture made by a reputable photography studio will also keep you from being able to get cheap reprints at some other photo store. You will have to either return to the studio for copies, or get permission to reproduce their work.

If you post it on the internet, and you do not own the copyrights to it, usually a take down request is all that ever happens at most, because the other party cannot show monetary damages from a free use of their copyrights unless you use it to make money off it.

 

[Nintendesert]

Not if you put them somewhere that says otherwise. That's like developing software, putting a BSD license on it, and then complaining about someone using it.

Terms of Service don't supersede law. I'm really interested in any cases similar to this that have upheld Facebook's TOS. Normally the click TOS rulings would be enough but this also involves copyright which she still maintained and used without her permission. Being an educational institution though brings in another caveat to it all. These kinds of cases to me are more interesting due to the implications across the industry than for the details of this particular ugly chick. It only takes one ruling to turn everything upside down. Just as everyone took STEAM's DRM up the ass and thought their TOS were law, the EU says fuck you Valve and things change.

 

[lxskllr]

Terms of Service don't supersede law. I'm really interested in any cases similar to this that have upheld Facebook's TOS. Normally the click TOS rulings would be enough but this also involves copyright which she still maintained and used without her permission. Being an educational institution though brings in another caveat to it all. These kinds of cases to me are more interesting due to the implications across the industry than for the details of this particular ugly chick. It only takes one ruling to turn everything upside down. Just as everyone took STEAM's DRM up the ass and thought their TOS were law, the EU says fuck you Valve and things change.

Copyright gives you a monopoly for distribution of material. Your terms can be highly permissive, or highly restrictive. If you contract to give people free access, in this case via facebook terms, you still have the copyright, but the terms are free use by the public.

This is like selling someone a CD of your music, and then suing them for playing it. Whatever one thinks of copyright, that would be an unworkable system, and wouldn't be a law at all.

 

[SSSnail]

Im not talking about privacy... im talking about ownership and control of content. My photos are my photo's regardless of the medium I placed them on.

If you put your photos on a FREE medium, then they have TOS that will tell you before you put your photos on that medium to tell you that your photos are no longer protected. If you continue to do so, then you've waived all rights.

If you want to protect your stuff, then put them on mediums that YOU control, or created.

Everyone knows this!