Editor’s Note: Be sure to see our update on changes to Facebook terms of service for 2015
I am a member of ASMP (the American Society of Media Photographers). They recently sent a useful update about a change to Facebook’s Terms of Service. The use of social media is always a balance between effective promotion and sacrificing your rights as an image maker.
ASMP advises strongly evaluating the new changes:
The new Facebook Terms of Use have been modified to allow the company to sell virtually anything that is uploaded to the service, including all your photos, your identity and your data. Facebook has also explicitly removed the privacy protection from the commercialization rights. This means that any photos uploaded to Facebook may be sold, distributed or otherwise commercialized with no compensation to the photographer.
Here’s a summary of the changes that ASMP has tracked. Heres the most important language. (Strikethrough indicates language that is being removed. Bold text is used to indicate the new additions.)
You can use your privacy settings to limit how your name and profile picture may be associated with commercial, sponsored, or related content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us. You give us permission to use your name, and profile picture, content, and information in connection with commercial, sponsored, or related that content (such as a brand you like) served or enhanced by us, subject to the limits you place. This means, for example, that you permit a business or other entity to pay us to display your name and/or profile picture with your content or information, without any compensation to you. If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.
UMM… WOW!
If you wish to provide feedback to the company, you can contact them .
ASMP says it will continue to pressure Facebook to modify the terms of use to be more favorable to photographers.
Click here to go to a Q&A on this subject.
______
Thanks for the heads up on this. As a constructive suggestion, and the idea wasn’t mine, rather than post pictures on FB. Post a link to your web site with the picture. FB T&Cs shouldn’t apply to links to a web page, and you have a lot more control over the content.
Good idea.
I’m relatively new to using Facebook to promote my business so can I ask you to comment on what I do. The images I post on Facebook are low resolution so a) they load quicker on mobile internet etc. and b) the file is not high enough quality to enlarge, print or publish. Doesn’t that get your images out there and publicise your business but at the same time protect your work? I’m not really a fan of watermarks as they simply ruin my enjoyment of a good photo so don’t use them.
Except you’re going to lose audience because Facebook is going to favor content hosted on its server…
Good idea!
Thanks for posting this. As a commercial photographer, I strongly disagree with Facebook’s policy regarding the sale of images to third parties without compensating the creator. I will not be posting any photographs on FB as long as this policy is in force.
Bad, bad Facebook. Like photographers don’t have enough people already trying to steal their photos, now we have to worry about what we post on Facebook and how it might be stolen for them to use for their own profits.
A-holes! So what if we “post” (upload) the image to another service, (Smugmug, 500px, Flickr, etc) and then simply provide a “link” to the image in our FB posts. Is there a distinction there? I’ll be looking forward to the first class action lawsuit against FB by a photographer. The case may not be won but it will certainly bring to light FB’s evil, greedy intentions.
I am currently posting to facebook from my smugmug website and I hope there is no way they can use my images…and if there is I`m washing my hands of facebook!! They can just kiss my ass goodbye!!
Of course, they will eventually modify the terms so that they can sell just about anything….even links. There is no end to greed.
Note that if you use the integration from 500px, each time you post an image to 500px the image will also be uploaded to a facebook album. So just in case you are using 500px, do not use the automatic integration, but post the link to the 500px page manually.
This is disgusting. Does the same apply to Instagram since FB owns Instagram?
yes, Instagram has the same Terms of Use agreement!
That’s why I quit Instagram when they were bought by Facebook.
I strongly disagree with this policy regarding sales of images. How dare you.
And that is one of the reasons I departed the Book of Faces over a year ago.. thanks for sharing for those still swimming in those waters!
Horrible! Can you please post the links to the specific pages you’re referring to? I couldn’t find them in the muddle of FB terms and mumbo jumbo…..
Click through to the FAQ linked at bottom of article
https://www.facebook.com/legal/proposedsrr
That’s the page, check out #10.
I think a NEW social Media page should be created WITH PRIVACY! Thank you for posting this and as much as I love posting my Amateur but pretty photos, I might start rethinking it….I would like to share this as I think ALL facebook users should and maybe a rebellion of some sorts is in order…..
it has been – it’s called Ello. :-)
Just requested an invitation from Ello. Thanks for posting )
I like Ello’s clean design and lack of ads, but I don’t believe there are any privacy settings, so I haven’t really jumped into it yet. I’d like to be able to limit the audience for photographs I upload to specific people, like “friends”, while at the same time not giving the site itself permission to use my work for their own personal gain and no compensation to me. Not that I think it would happen, as they have about a billion users, but it’s the principle of the thing.
I like the idea of an alternate network as well, but as an early Ello user, I’m afraid it will never hit critical mass. – and it’s ugly as hell. Has no one there ever heard of readability and typography? If they can consider these as well as an intuitive User Interface and a mobile, it might be a good beginning for a small niche site. Unfortunately that stuff is likely not enough to get people to move which is evidenced by the non-success of Google+ as an alternative to Facebook. Though some of us are ready to move (and… Read more »
It’s called http://ello.co
It is a rotten idea and I think a court of law will protect the photographer for anythIng they posted BEFORE THIS ADMISSION.
Unfortunately there’s no legal basis for your position. If you use the service you agree with the TOS – the only remedy is to stop using the service.
How can they change their terms of service after we’ve agreed to the past terms though? Can a photographer do that to one of their customers?
Terms of service change all the time. AT&T adds news service charges all the time to my bill. Airlines change baggage fees. Companies can make changes
Donald, earlier this or last year, Facebook has introduced a policy in their TOS, that you automatically agree to TOS changes unless you cancel your account.
Thanks for the heads up guys. I just posted on Facebook my stance now not to post my better photos (crappy snaps I do not care about) but use my 500px and Flickr accounts more. As I said in my rant “I will never be a world famous photographer and/or make money out of my photos; but I do not believe that someone else should without at least giving some compensation either.” It is a pity they have lowered themselves to this level, I have many friends in South East Asia that only use Facebook and love looking at my… Read more »
Flickr is now selling prints of some images uploaded to their service. Guess how much the image creator gets? And read Flickr’s Terms of (dis)Service, they are a full-blown rights grab as well.
This appears to be the same thing that happened with Google+ and Instagram last year. After a significant amount of pressure from photographers and graphic designers, Google+ and Instagram agreed that they would revise their TOS to protect copyrighted images, but it took a mass exodus of followers and Instagram is still suffering from the fallout by not getting their previously loyal users back. This is exactly why 500px, ViewBug, deviantArt, etc. do so well for photo sharing.
Google+ never had a ToS that similar to that of Facebook or of Instagram.
does this apply to Australia which has different copyright laws and copyright is automatic you dont have to apply for it
This doesn’t affect copyright. You can hold copyright adn still surrender all rights by giving a website sublicensable rights in their terms of service.
Every time Facebook changes their policy, posts like this show up. And then Facebook reiterates that it’s for you on their website (which they’ve been doing for years). If they were selling photographers (or amateurs) photos to outside sources, I think you’d be hearing about it.
How about this line? “If you have selected a specific audience for your content or information, we will respect your choice when we use it.”
This should mean that if I set the content to be displayed only to friends they should only use it that way, right?
That was OLD policy.
No it’s not the OLD policy. It’s in the article as an ADDITION.
Ah Facebook, I’m glad I never really trusted you enough to put much up there.
If we remove all our photographs, can they still use them? I got this reply on my page when I posted I would be removing them: “Removing them won’t make a difference, everyfile is saved to a photi database that facebook keeps forever”
What they do, versus what terms of service allow are different things.
While I don’t agree with Facebook at all and think it’s a rotten deal, I’m not sure I understand the implications for my portrait studio. In addition to modifying the metadata on all of our images, we upload low-res images that have been heavily watermarked and contains an info bar that has our studio name and Web address right in the middle of the image. Why would anyone use those? Wouldn’t they be advertising for us if they stole them?
You’re uploading a “safer” way. Some are posting hires images and letting Facebook resize. Just because they show low res, doesn’t mean they dont keep the hires.
watermark like CRAZY!!!!!
wont be posting important photos anymore
The whole point with Facebook is that the FB users are quite comfortably with clicking like all over the place as long as they see a picture alongside the post. If there is a link to some other place, the amount of like-clicking decreases a lot. This is just an amateur analysis by me from looking at my statistics from my own FB page.
But i think it´s pretty accurate.
We’re not arguing that liking works that way… but listen to the podcast to understand the issues at hands with your rights. Its your choice if you want to give them up… I post some of my pictures (but most of the time I go through third party services like 500 px).
Double edge sword though isn’t it? While the first thought is immediate outrage that they could use and sell without compensation, you also have to consider the extra exposure FB can give you to new client bases. Just look at your stats. When people “like” and/or share your photo, the views and exposure goes through the roof. Just upload a lower print quality and watermark it. And like a previous post said, post a link from your website instead. :)
Yes… there is no free lunch. Listen to last third of podcast. We discuss this with a top legal expert.
https://photofocus.com/2013/09/15/photographers-tamara-lackey-joel-grimes-plus-facebooks-new-policy-photofocus-podcast-91513/
I most certainly will be placing my copyright across my entire photo when I upload them and keeping them at a very low dpi! They aren’t getting my hard work for free.
well i think it’s pretty damn simple people. If you MUST update your followers and facebook-ies that you have new photos to share, post a link that GOES AWAY OFF FROM FACEBOOK to an external site that hosts your images. I doubt Facebook can get you for posting a link which no physical evidence of the photo..
Correct… links aren’t surrendering.
This infringes all copyright thay do not have a chance in this going through. They will be sued.
No it doesn’t infringe copyright…. You still hold copyright, but you’ve licenses your images worldwide (for free) without limits to them.
Won’t watermarking the images prevent this? I can’t imagine anyone buying watermarked images. I’m not the best at remembering to do so, but maybe this will make me remember :)
It may help… but they can remove them (content aware fills does wonders). You’ve given them a license to edit your photo as needed.
https://photofocus.com/2013/09/15/photographers-tamara-lackey-joel-grimes-plus-facebooks-new-policy-photofocus-podcast-91513/
Not if you soft watermark the entire image. Content aware would completely destroy the image. All photographers should do this to protect their images.
http://youtu.be/ASeYQ2v6zk4?list=UUkfcp-uHDX4a5ODkmgWpevw
Does this rule apply to all the photographs uploaded before this terms has changed?
Yes it does… listen to the podcast (last third) and find out why.
https://photofocus.com/2013/09/15/photographers-tamara-lackey-joel-grimes-plus-facebooks-new-policy-photofocus-podcast-91513/
Also how about just putting your watermark across your pic so it’s viewable but not useable to third parties.
Listen to the podcast… they have permission to remove your watermark in their terms of service.
https://photofocus.com/2013/09/15/photographers-tamara-lackey-joel-grimes-plus-facebooks-new-policy-photofocus-podcast-91513/
Who is going to pay for horribly compressed low-resolution photos? This is not something to actually be worried about. Carry on using FB as the best free advertising any of us could ever hope for.
Advertisers running ads on Facebook. Before you jump to an immedite decision, listen to our podcast this week. You aren’t thinking through all the ways they can be monetized.
Does this affect personal accounts as well? everything on my personal page is set to private & friends only…..
Copyright laws as they stand should not allow FB to just make a blanket statement and sell images of copyrighted material. If you register your images through the Library of Congress, and you put the symbol on any photos you show, it’s FB against you in court. If the courts rule against you then copyright essentially means nothing. Just my opinion.
Jeff… you are missing the point of terms of service. You can hold copyright, but you’ve granted Facebook a sub-licensable and unlimited license. Listen to the podcast we posted yesterday and the lawyers opinions.
That’s why I watermark all my pics, even my personal family pics. I don’t think they can take the watermark off without getting into trouble…
Nope, they can remove the watermark as their license allows them to modify the photos.
It’s INSANE that FB can do this to previously posted pics that were posted under different TOS!!! We posted pictures, watermark or not, to limited audiences, based on copyright laws, and if FB wants to change the TOS, so be it, but retro??? I don’t think so! And if we remove those previously posted pics, they STILL have them in their files and can STILL sell them? I, too, will be watching for the first class action suit against FB. And I will no longer be posting any photography, only links to my work posted on protected sites.
You know, I made a comment when I reposted this to my facebook, “I guess I need to start putting the Mickey Mouse logo on all my Photos – just to see what FB does when the Disney lawyers find out..”
The sad thing, is the more I think about it, the better the idea seems. Disney wouldn’t have any beef with ME..
Can’t believe how many images I’ve posted on FB without knowing they could be sold by FB…mind you, if I knew someone was willing to buy them,a nd FB told me, perhaps I wouldn’t mind so much. It would give me a little boost to start selling them myself and NEVER post them on FB
Richard. stormy asked if this affects personal accounts as well or is it just people advertising
Yep.. personal accounts.
Just my point of view: 1. In my understanding, Facebook was created with the intention of it being a social site, which means whatever is posted, will be available to anyone anywhere, 2. If you are scared that something you post, say or share on facebook, will be made available to anyone, anywhere – don’t post it or even better, don’t use Facebook. 3. I am myself an amateur photographer and I don’t upload, post or share any images I care about. It is my work – why should I allow anyone to use/abuse it! 4. When I do share/post… Read more »
There are lots of opinions voiced here. Please note that anyone who shares their opinion may or may not be right. This is a legal issue. Nothing here – posted by Photofocus staff or any comment here represents a substitution for consulting with a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. I see some misinformation here so please be careful when making decisions based on comments from folks on the Internet. Consult a real lawyer to be sure.
Facebook is just one of a line of organisations that are doing this…. Deviantart also claim right of licence as do others… I guess this is just an example of of the seedy side of modern business… Individuals who dream up such practices have little or no sense of what is right…. just what they can get away with. So, what can we do about it? Two things… one stop using their services and if that is not practical, get imaginative as to how we can watermark our work (NOT be using metadata I hasten to add) so that it… Read more »
Here is a thought: if someone posted your (supposedly great masterpiece) photos onto Facebook without your permission. In ordinary world, you can ask the poster to take down the photos without your written consent. But now, posted on facebook, will FB reply “Sorry that someone stole your photos without consent, but our company policy/TOS specifically states that anything posted onto our server is ours. You may sue the original poster for all we care.” And thus, you are doomed?!?!
Thanx for the information..
When we make up a cardboard box and, for argument’s sake, put a mouse inside it, that mouse is bound by whatever terms and conditions we build into the box. The mouse is restricted in what it can do. We, the boxmakers, on the other hand, can come and go from the box at will.
OK, I’ve read all this stuff and listened to the pod casts… Which leads me to the question, Have you or anyone you know (I mean really know ) had an image used, sold, or “stolen” by Facebook and if so, how was it used? I’m not on FB but have been told repeatedly by well connected friends in the art community that I NEED to be on FB to market my images and sell some art! I’m not looking to shoot for hire, I want to sell prints, etc. Yesterday I shared a link to my Flickr page with… Read more »
Be wary doesn’t mean don’t do it. It does mean be aware of what they can do. And yes, Ive seen my images used in ads before.
I enjoy what you guys tend to be up too. This sort of clever work and coverage!
Keep up the excellent works guys I’ve incorporated you guys
to blogroll.
If this is true then I will be shutting FB down and restarting with no pictures.
How about this for a suggestion – a cyber attack on Facebook. Everyone who uses Facebook uploading hundreds of low resolution out of focus badly exposed images of mundane objects such as a tree or a brick wall. Facebook will then spend years sorting the wheat from the chaff.
I”m so sick of Facebook. I’ve gotten to the point where I can’t stand all this social media anyway (except Word Press). I used to G+, Pinterest, etc., but truly…is that REALLY needed?? I was a slave to my computer. I’ve decided to stay in Word Press and make that my one and only besides housing my images on Smugmug. Boooo FB!
How does this policy effect photographers who have a copyright Certificate of Registration for their photographs from the government? Thank you
Holding copyright and granting someone an irrevocable license are different things. You’re still copyright holder, doesn’t mean you can’t give up rights.
Not just FB, Flickr are able to sell any pictures where the user has chosen a CC license and included commercial use.
Reblogged this on Images and Visions by S. Glover and commented:
FYI Photographers
Reblogged this on HP Travel Blog.
No more serious photography gets uploaded to FB, just mobile phone happy snaps.
Actually a lot of serious photography get uploaded to FB and there are ways to protect our selves as photographers. FB can put out all they want, but they don’t understand they cannot take our images a photographer without the appropriate PHOTO RELEASE FORMS from not only the Photographer, but the Model/Subject. So they can say all they want…and do all they want, but all a community of Photographers would have to do is file a lawsuit stating just that and FB would have to either cease and disit with the movement or pay for ALL RIGHTS TO IMAGES!! They… Read more »