Quick Question

L-M

Say I take a photo, I then put this photo on Facebook and somebody copies the photo and prints it. I didn't have my name on it, nor a copyright sign.

Are they in breach of copyright? Or is everything ok for them seeing as I didn't mention copyright? I'm not suing anyone, just trying to prove a point!

Thanks in advance!

PopeBuckfastXVI

Yes, you automatically own the copyright on the photo, and without getting explicit permission from you to use the photo in any way they are in breach of that copyright.

Thecageyone

You hold the original file, which holds all the necessary exif data to prove it originally came from your camera. It will have all the numbers associated with your exact cam. What they downloaded from FB is merely a copy, which will have no exif data attached.

L-M

Thecageyone wrote: »

You hold the original file, which holds all the necessary exif data to prove it originally came from your camera. It will have all the numbers associated with your exact cam. What they downloaded from FB is merely a copy, which will have no exif data attached.

It wasn't about proving whether it was mine or not, but just re the ownership. But thanks for that!

K_user

But there is a whole world of hurt attached to that question too...

The question of what is legal to photograph, and who owns what, is a huge area. And one that gives alot of people alot of headaches.

But if your image is a snapshot and you aren't trying to sell it and it doesn't breach another copyright, then yes, its yours and no one should be downloading and printing it.

Paulw

K_user wrote: »

But there is a whole world of hurt attached to that question too...

The question of what is legal to photograph, and who owns what, is a huge area. And one that gives alot of people alot of headaches.

But if your image is a snapshot and you aren't trying to sell it and it doesn't breach another copyright, then yes, its yours and no one should be downloading and printing it.

That has nothing to do with it. The legality of the image has nothing to do with copyright. Even if you take the image illegally, you still own the copyright, and no one has the right to reproduce it in any way, without your expressed permission.

Copyright of an image, and the right to take an image are totally separate, and in no way linked. It doesn't matter how/when/where/why an image was taken. Once the image is taken, you automatically own the copyright (with exceptions).

smelltheglove

If there is an image you dont want copied, I wouldnt be putting it up on facebook. I have heard of so many people copying facebook photos, even seen some of mine re-uploaded with my copyright taken off them and converted to black and white. Is it worth saying anything about it? To me most of the time, its not.

I even have had people come in and buy prints off me in work, when asking people what size they want I have heard them say, ah just give me the small one and I'll enlarge it myself on the computer:eek: I then have to explain to them that they would have no permission to do that. There are a lot of people out there who dont understand copyright and assume its ok to just copy a picture.

L-M

Ah no, I'm just trying to prove a point to an arrogant friend.

Is "expressed permission" written?

smelltheglove

Limerick man wrote: »

Ah no, I'm just trying to prove a point to an arrogant friend.

Is "expressed permission" written?

If it was a friend that copied and printed I wouldnt really be worrying about it.

Also if it was a general night out snapshot I wouldnt worry about it either.

Expressed permission should be in writing really though.

L-M

smelltheglove wrote: »

If it was a friend that copied and printed I wouldnt really be worrying about it.

Also if it was a general night out snapshot I wouldnt worry about it either.

It wasn't a night out! I was doing photography of cars drifting.

I best explain, because I'm not trying to sue a friend, lol...

Basically when I met him yesterday he said "Look, my father printed out the photo of my car for me!"

Completely joking then I said I could sue him for copyright, to which he replied "Ah no, no you can't, you're name wasn't on it and it didn't say anything about copyright".

I've no intention of suing him, I'm just clarifying something for myself and for him!

artyeva

i understand that you don't want to sue him - but hey - i'd still be pretty pi**ed off tbh!!!

i had someone who runs a local 'page' about the town go onto my flickr and copy one of my photos and post it onto THEIR page's photo album - granted it was only a thumbnail and it couldn't have been printed but they still didn't get my permission - i wrote them an e-mail requesting that they take it down but no reply - so i just filled out the form on facebook itself about copyright infringement and facebook took it down. the gas thing is i'd guess that ALL the photos on that page are robbed - there's a phtoto of a local sculpture taken by a tourist magazine with a big f*ck-off watermark through it and they STILL robbed it!!! some people just don't have a clue.... :mad:

L-M

Very true, the only thing that annoyed me was when I corrected him (for his own information) he just said "Ya ya, you're always right"

To make it worse, it was printed out in horrible quality on A4 paper:rolleyes:

I'm going to print one off for him anyway, after I photoshop it a bit.

Thanks for the help lads and lassies.

K_user

Paulw wrote: »

That has nothing to do with it. The legality of the image has nothing to do with copyright. Even if you take the image illegally, you still own the copyright, and no one has the right to reproduce it in any way, without your expressed permission.

Copyright of an image, and the right to take an image are totally separate, and in no way linked. It doesn't matter how/when/where/why an image was taken. Once the image is taken, you automatically own the copyright (with exceptions).

I was pointing out that there are areas that "whats legal" comes into what we photograph.

I then said that given the information the OP supplied, that his friend did not have the right to copy and reproduce.

Paulw

K_user wrote: »

I was pointing out that there are areas that "whats legal" comes into what we photograph.

But, what's legal to photograph, and copyright are in no way related. It's totally irrelevant if the image was taken legally or not. It is still a copyright issue.

Any images I put on facebook are tiny. (max 350px long) So, printing would look terrible, no matter what size they try to print it.

Expressed permission doesn't have to be written, but in general should be. You can verbally give permission.

Thecageyone

Your name would be on the original file if you included it in the metadata when saving it. You can set that up in Lightroom as a preset, then it takes a second each time you import an image to click 'save metadata to file' - Hey Presto! Your name is indeed on the file.

But either way, nobody has a right to any of your photos without permission.

melekalikimaka

you own utter and full copyright unless its written down somewhere you giving permission, full stop. til the day you die, pus 70 years.

nobeastsofierce

melekalikimaka wrote: »

you own utter and full copyright unless its written down somewhere you giving permission, full stop. til the day you die, pus 70 years.

The reason I don't put any photos worth printing on Facebook

1. For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.