Why does a photo of a person say copyright facebook when facebookdoesn't own the photo?

On 1/25/15 10:28 AM, Adair Bordon wrote:
deadrat wrote, on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 15:56:01 -0600:

Unless it's a work for hire, the person who creates the work owns the
copyright. The person who's the subject of the work may have some say
in its distribution.

This is a serious question because a huge percentage of the pictures
on Facebook were almost certainly taken by someone else using the camera
of the person who posted those pictures of themselves.

Who owns the copyright in that (extremely common) situation?
a. The one who took the picture?
b. The owner of the equipment?
c. The person who posted the picture?
d. The person depicted in the picture?

Once the thing in question is fixed (written, taken, sculpted,
whatever), the creator of the item generally owns the copyright. A
copyright is property, so its ownership may pass to others in the usual
ways (sale, gift, etc.) An exception to the creator rule is works for
hire, not relevant to the Facebook cases.

All other activities beyond creation like equipment ownership, posting
history, and the subject are irrelevant.

The person depicted may have some rights (privacy, commercial
exploitation, etc.) but these are separate from copyright.

On 1/25/15 10:33 AM, Adair Bordon wrote:
Evan Platt wrote, on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 07:29:31 -0800:

Doesn't matter what monkey took the photos, the photographer owns the
copyright.

I just read that, and the premise is that only a HUMAN can own a copyright,
but, of course, we know a COMPANY can own a copyright, but that article
conveniently skirts that issue.

It's not an issue, at least not a legal one. Companies are legal
persons, i.e., they have certain but not all rights that accrue to
natural persons. One of those rights is ownership of property.

However, the point of that article is that the photographer (who, in this
case, is, literally, a monkey) owns the copyright (according to one side).

Of course, the _other_ side says that the owner of the equipment owns the
copyright.

Or no one owns the copyright.

It's an important relevant question, in the case of Facebook, because an
absolutely HUGE number of photos of people posted to facebook are almost
certainly taken of them, with their own camer, but by someone else.

That monkey article implies that if I hand YOU my camera, momentarily,
to snap a picture of ME, (and then I post that picture to Facebook),
that YOU still own the copyright, not me.

Monkeys don't enter into it. Neither does the equipment. The way the
law is written (in the US), the creator owns the copyright.

That seems odd.
But, it's a valid question of these two newsgroups.

On 1/25/15 10:41 AM, Adair Bordon wrote:
Mayayana wrote, on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 10:41:47 -0500:

If the family
didn't give permission then dailymail, and perhaps
Facebook, stole the photos.

I don't have an inside track, but I doubt the pedophiles and incestuous
parents depicted on the pictures attributed to Facebook have explicitly
provided the dailymail their permission for their Facebook photos to
be published in stories such as this one below.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ttraction.html

Likely they don't need it, as the Facebook users have probably lost the
right to control the photos.

Interestingly, when the dailymail takes the photos themselves, they seem
to go the extra effort to blur out the faces of the accused:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-pickers.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...urt-hears.html

Notice they seem more comfortable publishing faces from Facebook
than from their own photographers. That's odd.

This might be due to differences between defamation and invasion of
privacy laws in the UK and the US. I doubt it has anything to do with
copyright.

On 2015-01-23 07:33:06 +0000, Adair Bordon said:

I read this article and noticed the pictures were listed with a
copyright attributed to Facebook.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-hospital.html


Almost certainly the girl took the photos (or her family) and she posted
it to her Facebook account.

We can assume that, anyway.

But, doesn't the deceased girl OWN the copyright?
Not Facebook?

When you upload a photo to Facebook you are also assigning rights to
them. Even if you don't own the rights to the photo you uploaded, you
assume the liability and they STILL own the rights to the photo. At
least this is what the user agreement would imply.

The only way I know of to actually remove a photo from Facebook (I am
including their internal backup store too) would be to serve them a
DMCA notice.

The lesson here is don't put photos on the internet. Ever.

In article , J.
Clarke wrote:

While possible, there is no evidence this happened with the
pictures used. If you have evidence that this is the case, please
present it.

The copyright goes to the artist, not to the owner of the equipment
used to make the artwork. If it went to the equipment owner then
every time you shot a picture with a rented camera the rental
agency would end up owning your work.

True. Which can lead to some interesting situations:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/...fie_who_owns_t
he_copyright.html

--
Sandman

On 2/1/2015 7:36 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 17:54:50 -0600, deadrat wrote:

On 1/23/15 5:41 PM, richard wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 07:33:06 +0000 (UTC), Adair Bordon wrote:

I read this article and noticed the pictures were listed with a
copyright attributed to Facebook.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-hospital.html

Almost certainly the girl took the photos (or her family) and she posted
it to her Facebook account.

We can assume that, anyway.

But, doesn't the deceased girl OWN the copyright?
Not Facebook?

No. The photographer owns the copyright and is the only one who can profit
from it.

Not Facebook photos. The copyright owner gives Facebook all the rights
to Facebook images, including the right to commercially exploit.

Said contract would not hold up in a court of law.
That's known as blackmail.
You post an image on our servers, we reserve the right to use it in any way
we see fit without your consent or approval.

Because Facebook does not own the actual copyright, they can not legally
license or sell to others that photo.
So there clause of rights to do as they please would be illegal.
Just because it's in an agreement, does not make the agreement legal.

By your logic an artist's agent cannot legally license or sell copies of
that work of art on the behalf of the artist.

If your contract with Facebook says that they can sell anything you post
on Facebook without giving you a cut, well that's low down and rotten
but it's not illegal.

And it's not "blackmail". Nobody is forcing you to use Facebook.

If you don't like Facebook's policies, they just don't use Facebook. If
you want to retain control of a given image, then don't put it on
Facebook.


Yup!
OTOH If FB can get images free, it doesn't have to purchase any. It can
also undercut stock image companies.

--
PeterN