mdorn wrote:
LOL. You might want to check who I replied to---it wasn't you.
Regardless, I'm not a lawyer in any State, so I have no idea what this "generational copy" is you are referring to. Sure, I understand it in the context you wrote it, but legally, I have no clue what this means---obviously, you do. To me, if a member of this forum copies one of my photos without my permission, it's called stealing. Whether I can "legally" sue this person for damages is another matter all together.
My comments were directed at another poster who said: "Note that if someone has already copied your photo, you no longer have rights to it. . . gone, even if you remove the photo or end your account."
This statement is just not correct according to the FB license agreement and copyright law as I understand it.
LOL. You might want to check who I replied to---it... (
show quote)
Dorn
I know you didn't reply to me! You did, however reference my post, and I have a right, nay, an obligation to respond. You don't want to argue the legal issues with me. No, I am not a member of the California bar, but I am familiar with the issues here. Members are talking about "ownership" and abstract "rights" here, but you are correct in that the only issues concern the words "copyright" and "license", neither of which is abstract. Both are defined by law. FB chooses to include them as a prominent part of their listing of legal terms because they want no one to be able to claim ignorance in a three-way legal battle between the holder of a copyright, FB and some recalcitrant person who may have used an image in violation of copyright law. Other forums, those that assume that their members "just routinely understand" the situation have no standing in a court of law if, by failing to notify members or their rights and responsibilities, have aided a criminal act or civil violation by their "act of omission" which, by the way, is another of those obscure terms recognized by the legal system.
Since it's inception, the internet has provided people ignorant of the law the means under the law to forfeit their rights to punitive awards simply because the holders of copyrights have, by proxy, given strangers a license to copy the copyright-protected material. Such a license does not, in any way, affect the copyright, except that it appoints the licensee as an agent to reproduce the copyright-protected material. Withdrawal from FB before the license is activated (acted-upon) is a withdrawl of that license. Mark Zuckerberg is not intesested with chasing some obscure work of art for his personal use. He is interested in shielding himself as a co-defendant in a copyright infringement trial, WHILE PLANTING THE SEED OF CORRUPTION IN THE MINDS OF FB MEMBERS. Whether that is part of a conspiracy has yet to be questioned. Other forum owners and administrators have set themselves up to be named as co-conspirators in criminal and/or tort actions.
The fact is, however, that if you post anything that is copyright protected on the internet, even though you may have no intention of allowing it to be copied, you are probably granting a one-time license for the use of that material to each and every person who wants a copy hanging in his/her living room. If that license is used to exceed the scope of copyright protection, you are still the holder of the copyright and can seek actual damages. It will be a rare jury, however, that upon hearing the hard (and hardly known) facts of licensure, grant any punitive damages and/or court costs.
The bottom line is this: Unless you are willing to give anyone and everyone the right to use a photo for themselves, DON'T POST IS ON THE INTERNET ANYTIME, ANYWHERE AND FOR ANY REASON!!!
Oh, by the way, password protection, watermarks and/or confidential forums are NOT a legal form of protection!