1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Copyright of uploaded images

Discussion in 'The Watering Hole' started by Herman, Oct 6, 2012.

  1. Herman

    Herman The Image Stimulator

    Jul 11, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Herman
    Does oneI keep copyright of her/his uploaded images to sites like:
    Facebook
    Minus
    Flickr
    500px
    Picasa
    DPR
    etc
     
  2. ajramirez

    ajramirez SC All-Pro

    Jul 9, 2010
    Caguas, Puerto Rico
    Antonio
    Generally speaking, you would be retaining copyright, but would be granting a free license to the site for use of your images. How broad of a license depends on the particular rules of the site.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  3. bartjeej

    bartjeej SC Hall of Famer

    Nov 12, 2010
    bart
    I think facebook pretty much get to do whatever the youknowwhat they want to do with your images: '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).'
    Facebook

    flickr gets a 'worldwide, royalty-free and non-exclusive license(s) (...)to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available.'
    Yahoo! Terms of Service
    so that's not quite as agressive as facebook
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Gary

    Gary SC All-Pro

    Aug 19, 2012
    Southern California
    Gary Ayala
    Most sites don't give-a-rat's about your images, it's all about them, acting as a middleman, protecting themselves from the owner and/or end-user and protecting themselves as an end user.

    Gary
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. Phoenix

    Phoenix SC Top Veteran

    508
    Dec 28, 2011
    Melbourne, Australia
    Phoenix Gonzales
  6. Hikari

    Hikari SC Veteran

    292
    Jan 5, 2013
    Maine, USA
    I hope they lose their shirts...
     
  7. Gary

    Gary SC All-Pro

    Aug 19, 2012
    Southern California
    Gary Ayala
    lol ...
     
  8. dixeyk

    dixeyk Guest

    Typically photo sharing sites like Zenfolio, Smugmug and Flickr allow you to set copyright and limit what resolutions to display. That said, there is nothing that can stop someone from downloading your file or doing a screen capture. if I have an image that I really wanted to protect I wouldn't put it on any photo sharing sites.
     
  9. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. SC All-Pro

    Nov 8, 2012
    New Mexico
    Larry
    You can right click protect images on SmugMug. It's not foolproof, but it offers some slight degree of protection if you want it. But anything online is prettty much vulnerable. I guess you have to decide how important sharing your stuff is. I think my friends like that I'm no longer sending them huge photo files but just links to SmugMug -- which they can click on or not.

    My basic theory is: Don't put it online or in an email if you absolutely have to protect it and keep it private.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Isoterica

    Isoterica SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 6, 2011
    Everything you view ends up as files in your browsers cache. Even if you right click protect a page, someone can sift their cache to find the image. If your images are embedded in Flash then a program like Gordon on the mac [it's a Flash decompiler] can lift them.. or as was said a screen shot. I use to have a web page protector encryption program that would encrypt html/css as well as rename associated files making them more difficult to find in the cache but they were still there. The only thing really protected by that app was the html itself. Encryption btw made the pages slower to load.

    I have been stolen from before, site layouts, graphics, photos.. The majority of what we post though isn't worthy of stealing. It's just the idea that when you get one great shot, like Noam Galai's "Stolen Scream" photo and it is stolen by people all over the world, printed on walls to tee shirts, posters and other items and not one cent goes to the original artist [and it's his face!] it's a bit disheartening you can't get royalties from all that and also a bit haunting to know that your work is all over being used to represent .. whatever.

    When people start getting serious about their work, art of any kind from music to photos, they endounter the copyright conundrum. In the end Lawrence is right, if you don't want any possibility of your work being stolen then do not put it on the web and certainly not on sites like facebook that are frequently in the news for changing up their terms of service and yet again stripping their users of even more rights. I found this site a few days ago Terms of Service; Didn't Read which shows several social media and photo sites various terms. While it isn't in any way all inclusive yet as the project is relatively knew, you get a good at-a-glance look at what goes on from site to site.

    When in doubt, read, when in more doubt, don't electronically publish. And you can seek whatever copyright protection is available in your country though I am not sure if those laws are applicable internationally too. I have found my photoshop brushes in India.. and other sites in the middle east. While I was not credited on many sites [some did give a link back] I did leave a brush in each set that had my user name and site information on it. I downloaded a few of my brushes from their sites and my authors brush was left in the set. At first I was irritated but as I had put them out for creative commons use, link back etc rules, I've long since let it go keeping instead what I've learned.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. olli

    olli Super Moderator Emeritus

    Sep 28, 2010
    Metro Manila
    olli
    I have the right click protect set on my site and my 500px page but it only deters 'passers-by'. All you have to do to get round it is disable JS in your browser and reload.

    Whatever you do people will steal your pics if they want to. One option is only to post low quality, small images online. These can be reproduced on other websites but aren't good enough to do anything else with. The problem is that with new generations of tablets and screens with very high resolution, your images look terrible. So you either accept they look terrible or you post larger higher quality images for others to steal.

    I resigned myself to it all eventually. Yes it's annoying to find your pics somewhere else without accreditation and when I do I contact the people involved, chiding them for not contacting me and requesting either a link or removal. But it's not as if your losing money - no-one was ever going to pay to use your image in the first place. The bigger issue is if someone else is passing your images off as their own at which point you should really be contacting the host rather than the site owner.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. EasyEd

    EasyEd SC Regular

    143
    Dec 22, 2010
    Hey All,

    There is another side to this whole idea of "I gotta protect what is mine" mentality.

    We all probably have those one or two or ? photographers whose work is - in our eyes - so good that we draw inspiration just looking at it. For me the top is easily easily Dorothea Lange not just for her photography but for her sheer dedication and sense of purpose as so well expressed by her writings. In fact I think as a body the photographers of the FSA were the greatest group ever assembled bar none - some might argue for Ansel Adams and group F64 or some such but that is a different thread.

    Now for somebody like Dorothea lange whose work is in the public domain - we can discuss her work like the sheer genius of say this photograph...

    8b34297u.

    Besides being - obviously - "Okies" we can see how human they are but so much more importantly is the ability to discuss the diagonal role of linoleum which some might think destroys the composition but in reality adds so much once you know why it is there.

    Probably one of the current photographers most inspirational to me is Barbara Jones from Scotland. While her work is landscape oriented and doesn't generally make the kind of social statements Dorothea's does, her compositions and use of colour are to me astounding. That said I guess it helps a lot to have such great subject material like the Isle of Skye. Here is her Flickr stream...

    Flickr: Barbara Jones / photosecosse.com's Photostream

    Her profile states...

    My issue becomes how do we as photographers have the ability to share and discuss specific pieces or a body of work by another contemporary photographer who is not dead and in the public domain and learn if you cannot post an image? How does the photographer become known?

    Aside from the pure self interest rights issue is a larger issue - exposure, discussion and education. Do you have to like die and have like 50 years go by to be discussed?

    -Ed-
     
  13. Hikari

    Hikari SC Veteran

    292
    Jan 5, 2013
    Maine, USA
    Why can't you just post a link to her web site or images? You don't need to take her images.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. EasyEd

    EasyEd SC Regular

    143
    Dec 22, 2010
    Hey All,

    Would that not violate the statement in quotes? It says do not use an image - isn't a link even for discussion usage?

    -Ed-
     
  15. Gary

    Gary SC All-Pro

    Aug 19, 2012
    Southern California
    Gary Ayala
    I see no violation in using a link. A link is quite different than "PLEASE do NOT use my images on websites, blogs or other media WITHOUT my explicit permission". Directing people to a website is different than taking an image from said website.

    Using an image for discussion purposes is much different than using an image for commercial purposes. Have you tried asking for her explicit permission?
     
  16. Hikari

    Hikari SC Veteran

    292
    Jan 5, 2013
    Maine, USA
    An image and a link are not the same. You put a link to her Flickr account. The link is not a violation of copyright. A link is not an image.
     
  17. EasyEd

    EasyEd SC Regular

    143
    Dec 22, 2010
    Hey All,

    I think the point is being completely missed here. When I say link I mean a link that reproduces the photo on this site.

    I do not want to say something like

    blah blah blah go look at this image that this link takes you to
    now blah blah blah go look at this other image this different link takes you to
    now blah blah blah the artistic meaning and interpretation blah blah blah

    I want to post both images here one on top the other right here using the {img} {/img} tags for immediate side by side or actually one on top the other immediate comparison/discussion.

    In fact I'm not sure flickr even allows for the use of links to individual photographs unless there is some option for allowing it probably by the "owner" of the photograph. I have a free account there and uploaded I think 6 or so images over a year ago and have never looked to see what the options are.

    Further I'm not sure this site is even allowing {img}{/img} to be used as in my post above it should show an image that is unquestionably - since it was taken during the great depression by a photographer (Dorothea Lange) working for the United States Government - in the public domain NO MATTER what url it is coming from. I'm just looking for one sized reasonably.

    As for Barbara's photos she does provide smugmug I think it is links to share her work but again the {img} tag routine does not seem to work here and the way the links come from smugmug it's not an image file - it is a link.

    So you lose the immediacy and ability to compare one to another if you use links because most people are just too lazy to actually go look. That immediate impact makes or breaks the whole concept of discussion. That is reality.

    I understand that sending people else where to the photographers actual site is not a violation but then like I said you lose all ability to meaningfully discuss anything.

    So even though the internet gives us enormous capability to share we find ways to isolate ourselves because of intellectual property, fear of reprisal and just plain money is what I am seeing.

    And no I earn none of my living from photography - I just remember the sheer value in discussing photographs from when I took a 3 month black and white photography course in college - the images were right there as was the discussion. And yes you needed to have a bit of thick skin and not take it personal - but educational yes absolutely and so totally worth it. Too bad it is apparently not possible today even with all the technology we have.

    -Ed-
     
  18. olli

    olli Super Moderator Emeritus

    Sep 28, 2010
    Metro Manila
    olli
    But Barbara Jones isn't saying 'never'. She's saying 'ask me'. It's hardly an unreasonable position. And if someone asked for permission with a view to using her image(s) as a starting point for a photographic discussion I imagine she might be okay with that. I would assume that the College you studies at had asked permission to use the images you were looking at there rather than just pulling them off the internet or printing without permission.

    I assert copyright on my images online and request that people contact me if they want to use them but I don't think that isolates me at all. In fact, if the person who wants to use my images contacts me then it creates contact and establishes communication. Is it about money? No. Most people who use an image without permission aren't going to pay up if you call them out on it because they are not using your image to make money. But if someone wants to use an image of mine for commercial purposes then yes, I expect them to pay. Apart from anything else it's only fair to photographers who are trying to make a living not to make life even more difficult for them by undercutting them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Isoterica

    Isoterica SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 6, 2011
    Embedding someone else's photo from their site so that you can see the photo on yours and not simply refer and add a link to their site is pirating their bandwidth, as well, so while you have not physically downloaded their photo and uploaded it to your site, while a viewer can even click on it and get to that site [IF you provide the link option] you are still violating their rights. It is better to ask if you intend to have a discussion about the work. Most artists that publish work on their sites do so in a manner that doesn't compromise themselves, they don't post high resolution printable material though admittedly resolution is getting so good with the newer cameras/sensors that it's getting hard to publish low-res files without devastating an image. Anyway.. most of them expect linking and even thumbnail linking but it's good to ask because if your discussion is actually worthwhile and they have an interactive/and active site, they might link back to you.

    Righto.. I've had a few people contact me so they could feature my work on art blogs and I let them, even gave them a low res to use and told them where to link and while my site that was linked to is no longer active, I was given full credit. There was no money making on either side, just exposure.