CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It depends. How low? What possible reuse are you trying to prevent? If you want to share / show, did you pick a resolution so small you fail your own sharing purpose(s) while trying to prevent theft? That's kind of like cutting your nose ...

As mentioned earlier, a good rule of thumb is 2048px on the long side, where maybe 1024px is better for limiting theft? Get smaller than that and there's no appreciable detail to bother even posting the image.

Recommended resizing parameters for digital images

KindaSpikey Loc: English living in San Diego

KindaSpikey Loc: English living in San Diego

It's a shame that you weren't around back in the day to advise the likes of Picasso and Van Gough, their signitures on the front really ruin their paintings!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

If it were just private parties lifting the images and sharing them, I'd have no problem with it. In fact I encourage it and I always watermark my images with an "ad" that includes my gallery website, for exactly that reason. It's free advertising for me. I also keep the images I post online small "proofs"... too small to make a print (if they are talented enough to remove the watermark) and not fully finished. Many of those private parties end up buying a larger, finished, un-watermarked version of the image from me (as a print or a digital copy licensed for personal use only... "no commercial usage"... though I will allow the occasional minor use upon request...such as a horse that's put up for sale).

It's different here, though, because the images are explicitly being used for a ongoing commercial purpose... by a company that's on Facebook to promote their business and, presumably, make a profit. IN other words, they are profiting from your images. I've never had anyone do that with image lifted from FB. I have given some collaborators (such as event organizers) permission to use my images without cost, especially when they have done me the courtesy of giving me access to take the photos, helped me promote them and the use of my images benefits us both. But they have always asked for permission before using and a few have even insisted on compensating me to some extent even after I've offered complimentary use. I always ask for, get a photo credit and a live link to my galleries, too.

The tricky part for you will be dealing with a customer who has gone on to mis-use your images. On the one hand, I imagine you want to keep them as a customer... but simply want them to pay a fair licensing fee for use of the image. It could be as you said, that someone at the company just assumed they had free usage of the images. But it's not something you want to encourage. Great that they gave you credit... but you can't pay the rent, buy gas for your car or replace worn out camera gear with that credit. At a minimum, they should make the credit a live link to your photo galleries, to help promote your business. You'll have to "ask nicely" to maintain the customer relationship. Maybe that's what you are already doing. Something like, "I'm sure this is just an oversight and perhaps the person who used the images was unaware, but those particular images now on your FB page had not yet been licensed for commercial usage so this it a copyright infringement. What can we do to resolve the situation?"

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

What do the usage terms, agreed upon by using Facebook, say about images?

lreisner Loc: Union,NJ

It depends on who is doing the stealing and what they are doing with the image. There are plenty of up rez programs out there that are quite good.

I would venture that for the average amateur photographer, theft is not a big problem.

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

That sucks. But doesn’t Facebook downsize all images, making them not worthy of being lifted by others?

Hip Coyote

Shapiro, a working pro, is right in all of this. My "professional" input is this. Having been involved in a lot of litigation matters in my professional life (I still do expert witness work) litigation costs are the deciding factor in most legal matters. When you see headlines about some crazy civil settlement of cops shooting some bad guy, usually there are behind the scenes decisions made on ligation costs vs. exposure to a judgement. Who is right vs. wrong is a far secondary matter. The only people who generally fair well in litigation are the attorneys (and expert witnesses). The emotional toll of litigation, depositions, court battles, testimony, is a bit more than most people want to endure. You can sue people for wearing the wrong hat...the question is can you prevail? And if you prevail can you actually receive the damage award, and what will that cost? (Think OJ and not paying all civil judgements against him.) If the defendant has deep pockets, they can spend you into oblivion. Add to that cross-state implications, and perhaps international legal implications and I think you can see how it becomes difficult.

I think the ad hoc attempts to stop people from using your images makes sense. if it were a large scale usage by a deep pockets entity, I would consider it. Some small travel agency in Omaha? I'd send a letter and ask them to stop or pay some small amount.

The other preventative remedies cannot hurt such as watermarks, etc. Registering the image certainly would help in litigation.

Of course, one alternative is to find a guy, who knows a guy who can make a visit to take care of the thing. That generally is guaranteed to work, but exposes the photographer to future criminal legal issues. In my case, I simply take crappy photos that no one wants, so it is not a concern of mine.

chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA

...it's personal taste, of course. If you like that style, by all means have at it.