REPORTING UNAUTHORISED USE OF YOUR IMAGES ON FACEBOOK
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( and intellectual property issues for photographers)
There is an automatic online system which enables Facebook members to report a range of complaint issues most of which are in the form of a simple tick box . Most , I think , are responded to with a warning from administrators in the form of temporary suspension of an account, for example for being abusive or spamming.
These can be found in a list when you click "report" to the left and directly under images you are viewing on other people's face book. This illustration shows the access point to the form to report intellectual property theft or misuse.
But, the issue of copyright infringement / intellectual property theft is taken very much more seriously by the Facebook owners. Thus there is a separate link , at the bottom of the column of tick boxes that takes victims of intellectual property theft ( copyright infringement) to a pro-forma.
Here , in what in what becomes a legal statement , the owner of the image ( or their agent) records evidence of infringement that meets the criteria outlined in the new DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act) This is USA legislation to which Facebook and therefore users of what is an American owned medium are bound to abide (regardless of nationality, ) to avoid possible litigation. It is an extension to and complimentary with existing international copyright legislation embodied in the Berne Convention.
My guess is that such complaints are stacked ( there must be many of them) and then dealt with gradually- Facebook , when the investigate. I believe they make the “alleged” image thief aware that an infringement complaint has been filed against them. This should indicate to the thief the actual gravity of their transgression and potential consequences and is or should be , more effective than a range of polite messages that might be exchanged between the two parties.
Both photographers and users of social platforms are aware of the rules, terms and conditions and laws , but professional photographers, (that is photographers whose living depends, in the main, on the sale or sale of licensed usage of their images) , also accept the pitfalls of publishing images in particular on social networking sites and the internet and the possible consequences. Many photographers take no action against infringements and are unconcerned about copyright infringement since images are heavily compressed during upload ( and automatically stripped of any embedded captioning or EXIF data) and allow unauthorised usage either from altruism or because they see it as self-promotion/ advertising. Some , for artistic reasons do not even visibly watermark their work, folly really as it is rare for facebookers to acknowledge their source. They are further aware that Facebook actually now facilitates both legitimate and unlawful downloading of images through the new image viewing system.
To overcome this weakness in the interface, photographers who object to unlawful downloading are wise to only publish very low resolution versions of an image and ensure that a very visible copyright watermark is positioned in such a way that it cannot easily be cropped off or removed.
Facebook also has no effective safeguard to prevent copyright images being uploaded and also, there is nothing in place to prevent someone using a copyright image for profile picture use. This is a particular problem where so many fans of stars in various fields wish to endorse their heroes or in some cases pretend that they are that person.
Of course anyone, phone camera snapper, amateur or professional owns the copyright of any image they take but the net is a vast" free for all" image data base of easily accessible images which we have no rights to upload, reproduce , alter , use in any way without the consent of the photographer/ owner of the image.
Photographers with any ambition to turn professional have to come to grips with copyright issues and be assertive in challenging any unlawful use. Professionals have a responsibility to fellow professionals because giving away images and not protecting copyright affects all other professionals and degrades the value of everyone’s work. Aspiring professionals who undermine the industry in this way will not be welcome to join professional supportive organisations and a history of this kind of behaviour will affect their ability to network with other professionals.
AMATEURS AND WOULD BE PROS BEWARE!
I come across many great amateurs who ask about how to proceed to become a professional photographer and make money from it. Typically they are hobbyists, may have had the odd shot published in a magazine or newspaper and almost always have never asked for or expected any payment. Being a professional is nothing to do with the quality of your photographs , it is all about marketing and taking images that sell and fulfil a demand in the market place. If they have a history of giving images away they have contributed to the ever diminishing returns within the market for all photographers. The digital revolution has made it o much harder to make a living from the job and find paying markets for images however good you may be.
Some amateurs ( that is photographers who do not seek to earn all or part of their living from photography but may wish to in the future) often have professional standard digital equipment through income from a separate source ) and are happy to give away images for the recognition / kudos it brings or altruistically helping organisations, groups or individuals they have an interest in. Frequent editorial image users, especially low budget , modest circulation magazines and e-zines, happily make commercial profit from such misguided amateurs and frequently offer no payment whatsoever. “We don’t have a budget” it the usual mantra to disguise what is self-interest and greed! Typically they will try to REPORTING UNAUTHORISED USE OF YOUR IMAGES ON FACEBOOK
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act ( and intellectual property issues for photographers)
There is an automatic online system which enables Facebook members to report a range of complaint issues most of which are in the form of a simple tick box . Most , I think , are responded to with a warning from administrators in the form of temporary suspension of an account, for example for being abusive or spamming.
These can be found in a list when you click "report" to the left and directly under images you are viewing on other people's face book. This illustration shows the access point to the form to report intellectual property theft or misuse.
But, the issue of copyright infringement / intellectual property theft is taken very much more seriously by the Facebook owners. Thus there is a separate link , at the bottom of the column of tick boxes that takes victims of intellectual property theft ( copyright infringement) to a pro-forma.
Here , in what in what becomes a legal statement , the owner of the image ( or their agent) records evidence of infringement that meets the criteria outlined in the new DMCA ( Digital Millennium Copyright Act) This is USA legislation to which Facebook and therefore users of what is an American owned medium are bound to abide (regardless of nationality, ) to avoid possible litigation. It is an extension to and complimentary with existing international copyright legislation embodied in the Berne Convention.
My guess is that such complaints are stacked ( there must be many of them) and then dealt with gradually- Facebook , when the investigate. I believe they make the “alleged” image thief aware that an infringement complaint has been filed against them. This should indicate to the thief the actual gravity of their transgression and potential consequences and is or should be , more effective than a range of polite messages that might be exchanged between the two parties.
Both photographers and users of social platforms are aware of the rules, terms and conditions and laws , but professional photographers, (that is photographers whose living depends, in the main, on the sale or sale of licensed usage of their images) , also accept the pitfalls of publishing images in particular on social networking sites and the internet and the possible consequences. Many photographers take no action against infringements and are unconcerned about copyright infringement since images are heavily compressed during upload ( and automatically stripped of any embedded captioning or EXIF data) and allow unauthorised usage either from altruism or because they see it as self-promotion/ advertising. Some , for artistic reasons do not even visibly watermark their work, folly really as it is rare for facebookers to acknowledge their source. They are further aware that Facebook actually now facilitates both legitimate and unlawful downloading of images through the new image viewing system.
To overcome this weakness in the interface, photographers who object to unlawful downloading are wise to only publish very low resolution versions of an image and ensure that a very visible copyright watermark is positioned in such a way that it cannot easily be cropped off or removed.
Facebook also has no effective safeguard to prevent copyright images being uploaded and also, there is nothing in place to prevent someone using a copyright image for profile picture use. This is a particular problem where so many fans of stars in various fields wish to endorse their heroes or in some cases pretend that they are that person.
Of course anyone, phone camera snapper, amateur or professional owns the copyright of any image they take but the net is a vast" free for all" image data base of easily accessible images which we have no rights to upload, reproduce , alter , use in any way without the consent of the photographer/ owner of the image.
Photographers with any ambition to turn professional have to come to grips with copyright issues and be assertive in challenging any unlawful use. Professionals have a responsibility to fellow professionals because giving away images and not protecting copyright affects all other professionals and degrades the value of everyone’s work. Aspiring professionals who undermine the industry in this way will not be welcome to join professional supportive organisations and a history of this kind of behaviour will affect their ability to network with other professionals.
AMATEURS AND WOULD BE PROS BEWARE!
I come across many great amateurs who ask about how to proceed to become a professional photographer and make money from it. Typically they are hobbyists, may have had the odd shot published in a magazine or newspaper and almost always have never asked for or expected any payment. Being a professional is nothing to do with the quality of your photographs , it is all about marketing and taking images that sell and fulfil a demand in the market place. If they have a history of giving images away they have contributed to the ever diminishing returns within the market for all photographers. The digital revolution has made it o much harder to make a living from the job and find paying markets for images however good you may be.
Some amateurs ( that is photographers who do not seek to earn all or part of their living from photography but may wish to in the future) often have professional standard digital equipment through income from a separate source ) and are happy to give away images for the recognition / kudos it brings or altruistically helping organisations, groups or individuals they have an interest in. Frequent editorial image users, especially low budget , modest circulation magazines and e-zines, happily make commercial profit from such misguided amateurs and frequently offer no payment whatsoever. “We don’t have a budget” itseduce you with the offer of what is known as a credit or by-line, that is you will be credited as the author/ photographer or if you have one, they might offer a link to your website. Since image theft is so rife on the net in what is a free-view culture, from such a worthless credit or by- line, you might get a temporary spike in visitor traffic but it is almost guaranteed that virtually all those visitors will be nothing but perpetual window shoppers. For me, a by line in such cases is the equivalent to giving away the keys to your house or your car.
