Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Just read a major article in a law journal about "shrink wrap agreements." These include the terms of service that many websites make you click on before placing an ad, joining, etc. The author described many odious aspects of such "agreements" terming much of them "fraud." A particular aspect concerns photographers who often don't realize that deep within the deliberately hard-to-read and hard-to-understand TOS are sneaky provisions which rip-off much of the victim's copyrights or even --- incredibly --- transfer it to the website entirely.

For example, suppose you seek headshot or other photo gigs via Craigslist, and you include a few photos within your ad to show your work. Well, hidden within CL's TOS is a provision that allows Craigslist to use your photos for any purpose whatsoever ... FOREVER.

Photo contests are traditionally notorious for rights grabs.

And some well-known websites have a foul reputation for privacy and similar violations, via provisions in the TOS. Or even through unannounced changes to the TOS. Facebook is particularly notorious for claiming the authority to use members faces and names as endorsing particular products in display ads! Facebook, has also from time to time tried photo rights thefts as well.

ADVICE: Until the courts get around to reining in many abuses, including those that trick rights-owners into transferring copyright:

1. Don't put your photos in Craigslist ads;
2. Be extremely wary of the well-known bad apples. Like Facebook and Google and Suicide Girls;
3. Actually read (yeah, I know it's tough) the TOS whenever you think about joining a website or entering a photo contest;
3a: Avoid dealing with any organization that claims the right to change their TOS without affirmatively notifying you.
3b: Look carefully for what rights the site claims (or even the total transfer of copyright!) when you post/submit photos. Many, perhaps most major sites are ripping you off.

4. Pray that the courts have enough wisdom to rein in at least some of the shrinkwrap abuses by Google, Facebook, Craigslist, Suicide Girls, and the many other bad actors.

dljen Loc: Central PA

Facebook said long ago that anything you post is theirs. Most people either ignore or just show pics from poor quality cell phones. The nicer pictures are small so they can't be copied for really any use.

Thanx for posting, shooter.

Michael Hartley Loc: Deer Capital of Georgia

If you like your photographs, and want to keep your photographs, DON'T put them on the interweb.

Swamp Gator Loc: Coastal South Carolina

Dammit! If that 600x600 photo of the 27" tube set I sold on craigslist a few years back ends up appearing all over the world without my permission I'm going to be really ticked off.

TheDman Loc: USA

are there any examples of one of these sites trying to claim ownership of someone's image?

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

I cited the example of Craigslist stealing an unlimited license but for now, stopping short of a transfer of copyright.

The most significant case regarding actual transfer (theft) of copyright via a click on TOS, was:

Metro. Reg'l Info. Sys. Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 722 F.3d 591, 602 (4th Cir. 2013) In that case the court ruled (idiotically, IMO) that the Plaintiff had obtained transfers of copyright via its TOS. The decision was wrong and heavily-criticized because, among other mistakes, the court ignored the fact that by law, copyright can only be transferred by WRITTEN agreement.

By far the most common ripoff, though, is the site purporting to obtain an unlimited license to do anything with images, without trying to obtain an actual transfer of copyright. One reason is that an unlimited license pretty much gives the crooks all they want or need. Another reason, again given the larcenous attitude of many web operators, we assume the reason for not seeking total transfer is that until recently the courts rightly observed the law: that a WRITTEN document is required for the transfer. Now that a court has ruled that transfer can happen without a WRITTEN document, we can expect to see more such ripoffs and attempted ripoffs.

And we can expect to see expanded attempts at copyright office from the usual culprits: social networks, Facebook in particular; photo sharing websites and photo-based social networks. And of course the crook-in-chief, Google, which built an empire on intellectual property theft, will move beyond the current infringement toward stealing copyright itself via hidden terms and other tricks.