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

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?

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?

Probably to show the source of the photo should it start appearing
elsewhere.

It seems that in general only corporations with lawyers
*really* get copyright protection. The news site is hosting
the photos on their own page, not linking to Facebook. The
student has died. I guess the interesting question is
whether dailymail stole the photos and just added the
copyright to cover themselves, whether Facebook gave
them permission, or whether the family gave them permission.
The first and second possibility would both seem to be theft
and cruel invasion of privacy. Whether it's technically legal for
Facebook to share private photos with news organizations,
it's clearly unethical. It's comparable to a phone company
sharing audio conversations. One might say that people
can't expect privacy at Facebook, but I don't think most
people understand that.

I'd be curious to know the story behind this. My guess
would be that dailymail stole photos that were publicly
accessible. (Whether or not the student intended them to
be would be another question.) Dailymail could then perhaps
legally post the photos as news, giving attribution to the
source the photos were stolen from: Facebook.

On 1/23/15 9:11 AM, Mayayana wrote: It seems that in general only
corporations with lawyers
*really* get copyright protection.

In general, persons (including fictive ones) with lawyers get more
protection of the law than those without.

The news site is hosting
the photos on their own page, not linking to Facebook.

So?

The
student has died. I guess the interesting question is
whether dailymail stole the photos and just added the
copyright to cover themselves, whether Facebook gave
them permission, or whether the family gave them permission.

Likely The Daily Mail added the copyright notice, but it's unlikely they
"stole" the photos. Facebook users own the copyright to their photos,
but in agreeing to Facebook's terms of service, users give Facebook just
about all the rights that adhere to copyright. Facebook can use the
pictures as it sees fit and can transfer them to anyone it wishes.

The first and second possibility would both seem to be theft
and cruel invasion of privacy.

As I said, there's little likelihood of theft, and at least in the US,
there can't be invasion of privacy because the girl is dead.

Whether it's technically legal for
Facebook to share private photos with news organizations,

Facebook photos, especially those you share, are no longer private.

it's clearly unethical. It's comparable to a phone company
sharing audio conversations.

Yeah, the situations are identical except for the fact that they differ
in every way. In the US, it's against the law for the phone company to
wiretap phone conversations. The Facebook photos are a licensing issue.

One might say that people
can't expect privacy at Facebook,

Ya think?

but I don't think most people understand that.

Fortunately, the law isn't determined by the most ignorant person around.

I'd be curious to know the story behind this. My guess
would be that dailymail stole photos that were publicly
accessible. (Whether or not the student intended them to
be would be another question.) Dailymail could then perhaps
legally post the photos as news, giving attribution to the
source the photos were stolen from: Facebook.

You guess, eh?

FYI, the photographer owns the copyright, whether it is registered or not.
The person who is the subject has nothing to say about it.

And just how is a dead person to bring up charges of copyright
infringement?

It has become a habit of internet domain owners to snitch photos from other
sites and use them without permission or "rights".
Qeustion is, does a website have to post if they are using the images with
permission or not?

Then, there is the "fair use" clause in the copyrght law which allows
content published by others to be used to some degree.

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.

On 1/23/15 2:22 PM, richard wrote:
FYI, the photographer owns the copyright, whether it is registered or not.

In general.

The person who is the subject has nothing to say about it.

Not about the ownership; possibly about the usage.

And just how is a dead person to bring up charges of copyright
infringement?

The executor brings an action in the name of the estate.

It has become a habit of internet domain owners to snitch photos from other
sites and use them without permission or "rights".
Qeustion is, does a website have to post if they are using the images with
permission or not?

Absent some terms of service agreement, not in the US.

Then, there is the "fair use" clause in the copyrght law which allows
content published by others to be used to some degree.

On 1/23/15 3:00 PM, Evan Platt wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:22:30 -0500, richard
wrote:

FYI, the photographer owns the copyright, whether it is registered or not.
The person who is the subject has nothing to say about it.

Where did anyone mention this?

Why do you insist on bringing things up as if someone had them for
debate? Where did anyone state otherwise?

And just how is a dead person to bring up charges of copyright
infringement?

Where did anyone mention this?

It has become a habit of internet domain owners

What exactly is a "internet domain owner"?

website owner.

to snitch photos from other sites and use them without permission or "rights".

How do you 'snitch' photos?

In Chrome, right click on the picture and select "Copy Image" from the
pop-up menu.

Qeustion is, does a website have to post if they are using the images with
permission or not?

Legally? Probably not. If they want to CYA, they may.

Then, there is the "fair use" clause in the copyrght law which allows
content published by others to be used to some degree.

Oh, and we know your expertise when it comes to copyright law...

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.

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.