Copyright and Your Image on Facebook
I admit - when I signed up for Facebook, I did not sit down with a nice hot cup of tea and take a leisurely half hour to read their Terms of Use. Did you, my dear pro photographer/artist/filmmaker friend? Didn't think so.
Today however (and only a day after I uploaded the first part of my portfolio to Emerald Bay Photo's custom Facebook page), a nudge from a friend prompted me to go take a closer look at the Terms of Use. I was shocked - to say the least. The verbiage has all the elements of a pro photographer's worst nightmare.
User Content Posted on the Site:
When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content. Facebook does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content.
While this all may seem like legalese to most people, to me, it's not. I've read, edited, and written enough legal contracts for the photo industry over the past 12 years that verbiage like this sends shivers down my spine (and those who know me, also know that photographer advocacy is a cause close to my heart).
Because in plain English - the second you upload an image to Facebook, they'll forever have a copy of it, and they'll also forever be able to use it. Because, as they claim, you've granted them a full and irrevocable license to your image, and they are from now on able to use it, modify it, give it away and - yes - license it to a third party. (Take a deep breath now, and ask yourself: why would they want to, and what for exactly, if there was no exchange of money?)
Naturally, Facebook has already caught a lot of flack for these terms. Founder Mark Zuckerberg justifies them like this in his response: "When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they've asked us to share it with. Without this license, we couldn't help people share that information."
Part of me understands that - another part of me cringes at the mere thought of opening myself up to yet another way my images could potentially be abused. And yet another part of me knows that it's a spectacularly difficult situation people don't usually have the bandwidth or knowledge to truly grasp, and therefore their initial reaction is to simply cry wolf.
What it really does though is highlight the complexity of copyright in the digital age. For example - you probably use Google every day, right? You search for content, images, use your Gmail, calendar etc.. But have you ever thought about what kind of license you enter into with Google for these most basic services? Have you read Google's Terms of Use? Here's what I found:
11. Content license from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
Hm. Sounds an awful lot like Facebook's license, no?
Taking a step back, it occurred to me that too often do we take the Internet and its vast resources for granted. When we use Facebook or Google, we don't think about the enormous amounts of time, effort, and money it takes to run these companies and sites. Or that we can access their services 24/7, from literally anywhere - FOR FREE.
For us pro photographers that means: having our websites show up in Google, or being able to upload our portfolios to Facebook (and share them with our friends, peers, clients) - which (let's be honest) gives us a whole new (and huge) channel of marketing. FOR FREE.
Should we have to trade the potential of having our images abused by a company such as Facebook or Google for the opportunity to display (and market) our services? Maybe not. We certainly have a choice. We can choose not to put our images out there, based on the rationale that if nobody can see them, nobody can abuse them. But if we don't put them out there, we also forever stay in the stone age with our businesses, doomed to having forever missed the train to the digital age. I, for one, readily acknowledge that over the past few years, the main bulk of my business has been generated by my website, its vast portfolio - and its excellent Google rating.
In his note, Zuckerberg talks about respect and trust. How do we know Facebook won't turn to the dark side one day, and start to utilize that trust (and that licensing agreement) for their own profit? We don't. We can only trust that they won't.
In the meantime however - we can be responsible digital citizens, protect our content as best as we can (by keeping your FB privacy settings restricted to only your friends, or watermarking all of the images on our website), and hope that FB does the right thing.
In the same meantime - let's not forget that we all reap the rewards of an open web of connections, such as the Internet or Facebook, to promote our businesses and help us earn a living.
Update: this post was originally published on Facebook, where it generated some interesting feedback links. I thought I should add them here to further the discussion and let other voices speak as well:
Photo Business Forum
APhotoEditor.com
Sportsshooter.com
UsePlus.com
Today however (and only a day after I uploaded the first part of my portfolio to Emerald Bay Photo's custom Facebook page), a nudge from a friend prompted me to go take a closer look at the Terms of Use. I was shocked - to say the least. The verbiage has all the elements of a pro photographer's worst nightmare.
User Content Posted on the Site:
When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary in order to facilitate the posting and storage of the User Content on the Site. By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time. If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content. Facebook does not assert any ownership over your User Content; rather, as between us and you, subject to the rights granted to us in these Terms, you retain full ownership of all of your User Content and any intellectual property rights or other proprietary rights associated with your User Content.
While this all may seem like legalese to most people, to me, it's not. I've read, edited, and written enough legal contracts for the photo industry over the past 12 years that verbiage like this sends shivers down my spine (and those who know me, also know that photographer advocacy is a cause close to my heart).
Because in plain English - the second you upload an image to Facebook, they'll forever have a copy of it, and they'll also forever be able to use it. Because, as they claim, you've granted them a full and irrevocable license to your image, and they are from now on able to use it, modify it, give it away and - yes - license it to a third party. (Take a deep breath now, and ask yourself: why would they want to, and what for exactly, if there was no exchange of money?)
Naturally, Facebook has already caught a lot of flack for these terms. Founder Mark Zuckerberg justifies them like this in his response: "When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they've asked us to share it with. Without this license, we couldn't help people share that information."
Part of me understands that - another part of me cringes at the mere thought of opening myself up to yet another way my images could potentially be abused. And yet another part of me knows that it's a spectacularly difficult situation people don't usually have the bandwidth or knowledge to truly grasp, and therefore their initial reaction is to simply cry wolf.
What it really does though is highlight the complexity of copyright in the digital age. For example - you probably use Google every day, right? You search for content, images, use your Gmail, calendar etc.. But have you ever thought about what kind of license you enter into with Google for these most basic services? Have you read Google's Terms of Use? Here's what I found:
11. Content license from you
11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.
11.2 You agree that this license includes a right for Google to make such Content available to other companies, organizations or individuals with whom Google has relationships for the provision of syndicated services, and to use such Content in connection with the provision of those services.
11.3 You understand that Google, in performing the required technical steps to provide the Services to our users, may (a) transmit or distribute your Content over various public networks and in various media; and (b) make such changes to your Content as are necessary to conform and adapt that Content to the technical requirements of connecting networks, devices, services or media. You agree that this license shall permit Google to take these actions.
11.4 You confirm and warrant to Google that you have all the rights, power and authority necessary to grant the above license.
Hm. Sounds an awful lot like Facebook's license, no?
Taking a step back, it occurred to me that too often do we take the Internet and its vast resources for granted. When we use Facebook or Google, we don't think about the enormous amounts of time, effort, and money it takes to run these companies and sites. Or that we can access their services 24/7, from literally anywhere - FOR FREE.
For us pro photographers that means: having our websites show up in Google, or being able to upload our portfolios to Facebook (and share them with our friends, peers, clients) - which (let's be honest) gives us a whole new (and huge) channel of marketing. FOR FREE.
Should we have to trade the potential of having our images abused by a company such as Facebook or Google for the opportunity to display (and market) our services? Maybe not. We certainly have a choice. We can choose not to put our images out there, based on the rationale that if nobody can see them, nobody can abuse them. But if we don't put them out there, we also forever stay in the stone age with our businesses, doomed to having forever missed the train to the digital age. I, for one, readily acknowledge that over the past few years, the main bulk of my business has been generated by my website, its vast portfolio - and its excellent Google rating.
In his note, Zuckerberg talks about respect and trust. How do we know Facebook won't turn to the dark side one day, and start to utilize that trust (and that licensing agreement) for their own profit? We don't. We can only trust that they won't.
In the meantime however - we can be responsible digital citizens, protect our content as best as we can (by keeping your FB privacy settings restricted to only your friends, or watermarking all of the images on our website), and hope that FB does the right thing.
In the same meantime - let's not forget that we all reap the rewards of an open web of connections, such as the Internet or Facebook, to promote our businesses and help us earn a living.
Update: this post was originally published on Facebook, where it generated some interesting feedback links. I thought I should add them here to further the discussion and let other voices speak as well:
Photo Business Forum
APhotoEditor.com
Sportsshooter.com
UsePlus.com
Labels: Bend Oregon photographer, Facebook, photographer advocacy, photography
posted by Simone at 4:20 PM
![[Get The Feed]](http://emeraldbayphoto.com/blog/xml.gif)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home