Is anyone familiar with copyright law regarding Facebook? I

>>2728390
You waive your rights when you post pics on FaceBook. any photo you post is now FaceBook's property, and they can use them with or without your consent. look up on it, simple google search can tell you.

File: fbc.jpg (119KB, 707x178px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 707x178px

>>2728397

Sorry but that is wrong info. Googling was the first thing I did, and every site I went to said you still retain all ownership of your works.
Straight from FB:

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:12:24 17:03:46
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	707
Image Height	178

>>2728403
You retain copyright, but you also grant Facebook permission to use the photos however they want.

>>2728403
then ur fine. go sue the news comapny

>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

As far as I understand it, when you post a photo to Facebook you are not just giving Facebook permission to use it however they want (as >>2728408 says) but because the agreement is 'transferable' (quoted) you are also giving Facebook permission to let anybody else (such as a major news station) use it however they want.

In other words, you've got no case. Read the terms & conditions next time.

>>2728390
> I don't think this is ok.

It's plainly in the ToS, you agreed to, anon.
> 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).
Basically, forget it. You allowed them to use your photos in exchange for hosting and having a social media platform.

Probably can't win the "I work my ass off" argument either; they're doing something more complex by running such a website anyhow. Kinda requires a lot of people with degrees & a lot of computers.

But you can do this:
> 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.
Though I guess they might have shared it all with others.

Shit like this happened to a friend of mine who found some photos he took on various websites and even printed in store windows.
Never upload shit to facebook. Upload it to your flickr and post the link at facebook. It still gives a preview and facebook gets the right to use the link, but not the photo.

Have you tried just asking the news station for a reasonable fee without any legal BS?

>>2728390

IANAL, but no the news can't use these. Posting on facebook doesn't make them public domain. There may be fair use, but it's not like you're some dude who happened to take a cell phone pic, you were clearly doing something.


BUT good luck getting any money or even an apology, unless your uncle's a lawyer or something. That's the real question you should've been asking.

>>2728429
>>2728412
I'm skeptical that it works that way. I can't imagine all the companies with more money and a bigger dick to swing around than Facebook that use the site for promotional shit would be cool with this agreement.

as far as i know, whoever took the photo owns the photo

think of it this way anon:

would the news company have seen your photos had they not been posted to Facebook? like if you had put it on your person website? I understand it's upsetting not getting credit, but also no one would have ever seen your photos in the first place.

>>2728412
>As far as I understand it, when you post a photo to Facebook you are not just giving Facebook permission to use it however they want (as >>2728408 says) but because the agreement is 'transferable' (quoted)

What's wrong with you? Giving right to jewbook does not mean giving right to anybody. Reread first screenshot in this thread.

Also: major news station is making money with the help of his images and has also overwritten his watermark. This can in no way be fair usage.

File: 2015-12-26-144020_1050x1622_scrot.png (20KB, 979x134px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 979x134px

>>2729573
>What's wrong with you? Giving right to jewbook does not mean giving right to anybody. Reread first screenshot in this thread.

Did you even read what I quoted? Here, I put it into a screenshot for you, because you seem to pay more attention to those. You give a *transferable* license to Facebook, which means they can in turn give it to anybody the like.

Look at this way, you can go up to the news station and while they may or may not legally be allowed to use your photos, they might hire you as their photographer or something

>>2729575
Yes but did they?

>>2729575
>You give a *transferable* license to Facebook, which means they can in turn give it to anybody the like.

Now please show me a way of getting this license.

File: 1448045190737.jpg (65KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 640x480px

This thread is bad.

Contact the news agency and ask for what they pay freelancers. It will be a crap amount of money but it's way easier than suing and you'll actually end up with money. Also ask for photos to be credited to you.

Uploading to facebook is irrelevant to the current discussion other than don't upload to facebook. Seriously guys just stop doing that. Use another platform and link to it on facebook.

>>2729587
(not him)

Buy facebook.