TheDman Loc: USA

Exactly. I always see people getting scared of legalese they don't quite understand. This is just Facebook's way of saying you can't come back and sue them if you delete your account and someone else had already shared one of your photos. It's not very possible to go back and police that. You still have every right to your photo. Mark Zuckerberg isn't sitting around saying "Yes! Jim finally uploaded his bird-in-flight photo! Let's run wild with this!"

ygelman Loc: new -- North of Poughkeepsie!

So if someone took my photo off Facebook and sold it to a magazine, I can still successfully sue? And whom do I sue, the thief or the magazine?

But if Facebook places the photo in a magazine, I can't sue. Right?

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Sorry, I'm not a lawyer. I cannot answer those questions. However, I feel very confident in saying (based on the FB agreement) that you do not lose, nor do you automatically relinquish ownership of your photos if you upload them to Facebook.

Bushpilot Loc: Minnesota

I tried flicker for a year and hated it! I use PBase now cost $26.00 a year, allows lots of galleries no junk mail.
Dennis.

calliwa Loc: Avon, IN

Wow!. I didn't expect to create such a heated debate, but am thankful for all your suggestions. I will take each into consideration and I expect we will find a solution that works best for our group. Thanks to all of you again for contributing to my question.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Heated debate? LOL. Stick around... it gets better. :-)

SteveR Loc: Michigan

I am a member of a photo group on facebook. Every two weeks there is a new "challenge" and members add their photos to that particular file where they remain forever. A new file is created for the next challenge.

Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA

Flickr lets you organize your photos into albums. Could that work for you? I like flickr because they don't downsize your pictures. If you have an 80MB pic, you can download it in a number of sizes up to the full 80MB. It also allows you to display the camera and lens settings for each pic. And it's free.

Bob

rebride

Here at UHH you can not delete, but give same non-exclusive license. Is that not the case?

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Yes, I believe that is the case. UHH is similar to FB in that you give "worldwide, non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, sub-licenseable..." permission to UHH.

Like you said, the difference is that you cannot delete anything posted after your 1hr editing session window has lapsed. The admin "may" entertain a request to remove a photo or photos that you post, but it's entirely up to him/her.

Also note that when you upload a full-res photo and use the "store original" option, it is likely that your original photo may be replaced with a smaller resolution version (800x600) after some time to save disk space.

Here is the terms of use link:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/terms_of_use.jsp

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

I never said or even implied that you lost or gave up your copyright, but you have given FB (and, granted, most other sites) the right to make a copy of your photograph. If another member uses that photo, it is called, at least in three states that I know of, a "generational copy" and any demand for its removal can be blocked effectively by claiming that it was not your photo that was copied, but a licensed copy; there can be dozens of generations to backtrack until you can establish that the use of your copy was "willful and malicious", and on that phrase rests your only hope for a substantial punitive award. If you only post your pictures in such a way that it can be reasonably assumed that there was a valid expectation of privacy (in the case of photos, art, recordings, etc., the term is right of expectation of exclusivity), then you only have one generation to worry about. Unless I don't mind having my pictures copied, I will never post one to FB, UHH or any other open forum. I would always use a highly secure site to permit viewing - and then my photos will be over-prominently watermarked with a copyright statement and will be of such low resolution as to be worthless to any potential thief, and that includes the client. There is one principle of law many people forget; the most important target of tort action is not necessarily the violator, but the person who caused the violation to occur. The simplest explanation of this principle is illustrated by the situation in which a client tricks a printer (like Walgreen's) into printing an illegal copy. If Walgreen's took reasonable precaution to avoid willful violation of the law, but still printed the picture in good faith, you go after the client, not Walgreen's!

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

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.

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

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!

TheDman Loc: USA

So how does that in any way go against what mdorn was arguing, that you do not "lose rights" to your photo?

BHC Loc: Strawberry Valley, JF, USA

My response was simply to tell him why I responded after he chastised me for responding to a posting that was meant for another member. Inasmuch as he involved me, I had an obligation to clarify my point of view. If that agreed, at least in part, with his ideas, the only point made was a response to his post.