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

On 1/23/15 7:04 PM, richard wrote:
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.

Bull****. There are no threats here. If you want to use Facebook, you
agree to share your text and images. If you don't want to share, you
don't have to use Facebook.

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.

Yep. See the agreement below.

Because Facebook does not own the actual copyright, they can not legally
license or sell to others that photo.

They can if you license them to do so. Which is what they want in
exchange for using their site.

So there clause of rights to do as they please would be illegal.

Bull****

Just because it's in an agreement, does not make the agreement legal.

If the agreement violates public policy, then sure. But nothing in this
agreement goes beyond a reasonable commercial exchange.

quote
2. Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you
can control how it is shared through your privacy and application
settings. In addition:

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like
photos and videos (IP content), 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 (IP License). 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.

2.When you delete IP content, snip/

3. When you use an application, the application may ask for your
permission to access your content and information as well as content and
information that others have shared with you. We require applications
to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will
control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content
and information. snip/

4. When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it
means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook,
to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e.,
your name and profile picture).

5. We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about
Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation
to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).
/quote

K Wills wrote, on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 03:19:24 -0600:

It's pretty obvious the woman in question didn't take the
pictures of herself. They aren't selfies. Because of this, it is
*possible* for the actual photographer to file suit. Presuming s/he
didn't assign/sell the copyright to another.

That's interesting.

So the photographER owns the copyright?

Almost certainly, the woman uploaded the pictures to her Facebook account.

What if the photographer used the woman's camera to snap the picture?

| 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.

What a quirky world we live in. Madonna has
her commercial product (which she has the nerve
to call art) stolen and she refers to "artistic rape"
and "terrorism".

An 18 year girl dies in a tragic
accident and her photos are taken from her
Facebook page and plastered online, yet you
say they weren't stolen because Facebook's
mickey mouse TOS says they share rights to
content.

I specifically said stolen rather than "crime of
theft". Stealing is taking something that belongs
to someone else without permission. If the family
didn't give permission then dailymail, and perhaps
Facebook, stole the photos. Maybe they didn't
commit a punishable crime by the letter of the
law, but it's still stealing.

If we can't clearly establish the moral premises
that support our laws then how can we have
useful laws at all? Are ethics irrelevant, then? Shall
we just reduce it all to letter of the law, with laws
based merely on financial loss and gain issues?

On 1/24/15 9:09 AM, Adair Bordon wrote:
K Wills wrote, on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 03:19:24 -0600:

It's pretty obvious the woman in question didn't take the
pictures of herself. They aren't selfies. Because of this, it is
*possible* for the actual photographer to file suit. Presuming s/he
didn't assign/sell the copyright to another.

That's interesting.

So the photographER owns the copyright?

Almost certainly, the woman uploaded the pictures to her Facebook account.

What if the photographer used the woman's camera to snap the picture?

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.

On 1/24/15 9:41 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| 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.

What a quirky world we live in. Madonna has
her commercial product (which she has the nerve
to call art) stolen and she refers to "artistic rape"
and "terrorism".

If you don't like Madonna's musical offerings, then I find it hard to
understand why you care about her hyperbole about the theft. No matter
your opinion of the quality of her album, it's hers, and that means her
intellectual property was stolen.

An 18 year girl dies in a tragic
accident and her photos are taken from her
Facebook page and plastered online, yet you
say they weren't stolen because Facebook's
mickey mouse TOS says they share rights to
content.

When an 18 year-old girl dies, then nothing can legally be taken from
her. It's not even clear who owns the copyright to the photos or
whether her Facebook usage lost her the right to control them. In the
US, fair use might cover their publication in any case. Generally, we
frown on letting the law or letting private parties use the law to
suppress news. The drawback is that exploiters like TDM publish
offensive things. The alternative is worse.

The TOS is a legal agreement between the girl and Facebook. "Mickey
Mouse" is not a term of legal art. I take it that means you don't think
the agreement is fair or permissible. Fine. Don't use Facebook. The
victim had the same choice you have now, and she chose to go with using
Facebook.

I specifically said stolen rather than "crime of
theft". Stealing is taking something that belongs
to someone else without permission.

That's pretty much what the law says in most US jurisdictions (except
that the taker must intend never to return the item). Theft and
stealing are pretty much synonymous.

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

As has been explained to you repeatedly, this is very unlikely.

Maybe they didn't
commit a punishable crime by the letter of the
law, but it's still stealing.

No, it's just something you object to. That's different.

If we can't clearly establish the moral premises
that support our laws then how can we have
useful laws at all?

And in the same philosophical vein, how can we have nice legal things
when there are ignoramuses like you around who refuse to take the
trouble to understand?

Are ethics irrelevant, then?

Whose ethics? Relevant to what?

I think it's fair to say that your sense of misplaced outrage -- which I
wouldn't favor with the term "code of ethics" -- is irrelevant to the
legal issues involved with TDM's publication of the photos.

Shall we just reduce it all to letter of the law,

Yes, let's do that. The letter of the law is also your sword and your
shield should you ever be accused of wrongdoing. If that ever happens,
you'll thank your lucky stars that the law defines the boundaries and
doesn't leave you to the mercy of others' arbitrary ethical tantrums.

You know, like the one you're throwing here.

with laws based merely on financial loss and gain issues?

This is a topic different from the letter of the law. A major concern
of the law is property (including intellectual property) for the good
and sufficient reason that most people spend a lot of time on acquiring
and using property, and they often find themselves in conflict with
other people doing the same. The law preempts private action and for
the most part monetizes the settlement of private disputes. This is
widely considered a feature, not a bug.

K Wills wrote, on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:48:19 -0600:

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

You're being ridiculous.
You're asking me to prove something in a specific case, regarding a
deceased person, which is something that EVERYONE does all the time,
so it's as commonly done as eating breakfast. Yet, you're asking me
to prove that this (now deceased) woman ate breakfast that morning.

Here is the same web site, misusing the same Facebook photos, only
NOT for a deceased person.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ttraction.html


1. Almost certainly, this mother took some of the selfies.
2. Almost certainly, some pictures were taken with her camera by others.
3. Almost certainly, this mother uploaded them to Facebook herself.
4. Almost certainly, she gave nobody permission to publish them in
that news story about her having incest with her biological child.

Who owns the copyright anyway?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

On 1/25/15 10:24 AM, Adair Bordon wrote:
K Wills wrote, on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 09:48:19 -0600:

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

You're being ridiculous.
You're asking me to prove something in a specific case, regarding a
deceased person, which is something that EVERYONE does all the time,
so it's as commonly done as eating breakfast. Yet, you're asking me
to prove that this (now deceased) woman ate breakfast that morning.

Here is the same web site, misusing the same Facebook photos, only
NOT for a deceased person.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ttraction.html


1. Almost certainly, this mother took some of the selfies.
2. Almost certainly, some pictures were taken with her camera by others.
3. Almost certainly, this mother uploaded them to Facebook herself.
4. Almost certainly, she gave nobody permission to publish them in
that news story about her having incest with her biological child.

Who owns the copyright anyway?

From the article: "[S]he was found in a Ukiah, California motel room
with the 16-year-old boy, who had recorded his mother giving him oral
sex on his phone."

How did he record the event if they were on his phone? And how
uncomfortable is that?

Mo "[she] was sentenced to four years and eight months behind bars in
Napa County Superior Court, California"

56 months sitting in a Superior Court! That's harsh.

1. Probably.
2. Not relevant.
3. Probably.
4. More than likely, she did, via Facebook's terms of service.

Most likely, the mother owns the copyright, but not the exclusive rights
of distribution.