pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Facebook page with lots of followers using TONS of watermarked images  (Read 10189 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2016, 03:57 »
0
They will remove the page if they get enough complaints from copyright holders about their individual images. They wont be interested in general reports about the page from people who don't own the images. They aren't interested in taking responsibility for assessing the whole page without the specific reports.


Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2016, 04:01 »
0
.....I understand that Facebook cannot scroll down the page to find issues, but in the case of this page Facebook does not need to check all the page to see if there are issues, because all the page is a violation of the intellectual properties, from the top post.

It isn't to do with how long it will take. They just aren't interested in policing content in this way. They don't want to be thought of as responsible for checking content put on their site, they leave it to us to do the policing of our own work. It sucks and hopefully one day it will change, but for now if you want content removed you need to do it how I have said.

Chichikov

« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2016, 05:46 »
0
.....I understand that Facebook cannot scroll down the page to find issues, but in the case of this page Facebook does not need to check all the page to see if there are issues, because all the page is a violation of the intellectual properties, from the top post.

It isn't to do with how long it will take. They just aren't interested in policing content in this way. They don't want to be thought of as responsible for checking content put on their site, they leave it to us to do the policing of our own work. It sucks and hopefully one day it will change, but for now if you want content removed you need to do it how I have said.

Is a site legally responsible of the published content or not?

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2016, 06:00 »
+1
.....I understand that Facebook cannot scroll down the page to find issues, but in the case of this page Facebook does not need to check all the page to see if there are issues, because all the page is a violation of the intellectual properties, from the top post.

It isn't to do with how long it will take. They just aren't interested in policing content in this way. They don't want to be thought of as responsible for checking content put on their site, they leave it to us to do the policing of our own work. It sucks and hopefully one day it will change, but for now if you want content removed you need to do it how I have said.

Is a site legally responsible of the published content or not?

"15.2:
If anyone brings a claim against us related to your actions, content or information on Facebook, you will indemnify and hold us harmless from and against all damages, losses, and expenses of any kind (including reasonable legal fees and costs) related to such claim. Although we provide rules for user conduct, we do not control or direct users' actions on Facebook and are not responsible for the content or information users transmit or share on Facebook. We are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content or information you may encounter on Facebook. We are not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of Facebook."


Most sites won't deal with anyone other than the IP holder.
It seems that at least some agencies also won't deal with this sort of thing unless the actual copyright holder makes the request, if even then.

Chichikov

« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2016, 06:57 »
0
.....I understand that Facebook cannot scroll down the page to find issues, but in the case of this page Facebook does not need to check all the page to see if there are issues, because all the page is a violation of the intellectual properties, from the top post.


It isn't to do with how long it will take. They just aren't interested in policing content in this way. They don't want to be thought of as responsible for checking content put on their site, they leave it to us to do the policing of our own work. It sucks and hopefully one day it will change, but for now if you want content removed you need to do it how I have said.


Is a site legally responsible of the published content or not?


"15.2:
If anyone brings a claim against us related to your actions, content or information on Facebook, you will indemnify and hold us harmless from and against all damages, losses, and expenses of any kind (including reasonable legal fees and costs) related to such claim. Although we provide rules for user conduct, we do not control or direct users' actions on Facebook and are not responsible for the content or information users transmit or share on Facebook. We are not responsible for any offensive, inappropriate, obscene, unlawful or otherwise objectionable content or information you may encounter on Facebook. We are not responsible for the conduct, whether online or offline, of any user of Facebook."


Most sites won't deal with anyone other than the IP holder.
It seems that at least some agencies also won't deal with this sort of thing unless the actual copyright holder makes the request, if even then.


Thank you ShadySue!

This is what says FB (or other sites), but it is their rules.
Their rules are not the Law, and no rule can be contrary to the Law.

So what says the Law about the sites responsibility for content?

http://corporate.findlaw.com/intellectual-property/website-provider-liability-for-user-content-and-actions.html/

"Contributory infringement occurs when a party knows of an infringing activity and substantially participates in that activity. While the existing cases have not definitively addressed when a website is contributorily infringing based on its users. activities, the cases generally have suggested a notice-based liability standard. In other words, once a website receives notice that a user is committing infringement, the website will be deemed to be substantially participating in the infringement if it does not remove the infringement within a reasonable period of time. (Note: The courts have not yet defined what is a suitable "notice" that alleges copyright infringement; for now, each notice must be analyzed on its own terms.) Of course, if a website actually knows of a particular infringement based on its practices, this knowledge will also trigger the duty to act. Thus, to minimize exposure for contributory copyright infringement, websites should (a) try to reduce actual knowledge of user-generated content by not monitoring their services, and (b) respond promptly to notices alleging that a user is committing copyright infringement."

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2016, 07:03 »
+1

"15.2:
...Thus, to minimize exposure for contributory copyright infringement, websites should (a) try to reduce actual knowledge of user-generated content by not monitoring their services..."

This is their attitude, they wont check the content. They literally don't want to know because knowing would open them up to being sued. They will only respond to the actual copyright holder.

« Reply #31 on: July 31, 2016, 08:03 »
0

"15.2:
...Thus, to minimize exposure for contributory copyright infringement, websites should (a) try to reduce actual knowledge of user-generated content by not monitoring their services..."

This is their attitude, they wont check the content. They literally don't want to know because knowing would open them up to being sued. They will only respond to the actual copyright holder.

yes, or so they tell you they don't check content.
like who does not know that agency which specializes in free porn movies???
this is the first thing you see in their waiver too.
but they, and the contributors, make tons of money from traffic and ads.

« Reply #32 on: July 31, 2016, 12:32 »
+1
this facebook page is so useless and full of junk that i can't see who would visit it intentinally. And i think the one who created has a maximum of 1 neuron.
about half of the world population is "mononeuron"

« Reply #33 on: July 31, 2016, 13:16 »
0
this facebook page is so useless and full of junk that i can't see who would visit it intentinally. And i think the one who created has a maximum of 1 neuron.
about half of the world population is "mononeuron"

LOL, half the world pop??? u kidding me???
more like 98.6% ...
how many friends can one really have, i thought even 10 is too many for me to entertain
and have a good conversation , considering i have only so many free hours a week!!!
yet these ppl have thousands and they poke you and say , :hey whatsup??"
and when you do tell them and ask them ... "they don't write anything , but poke you again!"

i like your defitiion of such ppl... mononeuron LOL

it's like someone once said, "the reason why wars are so easily started
is that it is not difficult to find sheep to follow you off the cliff"
...just get everyone who has a fb a/c

substancep

  • Medical, science, nature, and macro photography

« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2016, 00:03 »
+4
So has anyone contacted an agency or filed a DMCA takedown yet?

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2016, 01:36 »
0
So has anyone contacted an agency or filed a DMCA takedown yet?
Where's the fun in that?

Chichikov

« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2016, 23:46 »
0

« Reply #37 on: August 03, 2016, 08:00 »
+1

"15.2:
...Thus, to minimize exposure for contributory copyright infringement, websites should (a) try to reduce actual knowledge of user-generated content by not monitoring their services..."

This is their attitude, they wont check the content. They literally don't want to know because knowing would open them up to being sued. They will only respond to the actual copyright holder.

They may not want to know but if you have notified them and they have responded to you does that not mean they are now aware and by refusing to do anything about it are substantially participatiing as per the corporate law quote by chichikov:

Quote
once a website receives notice that a user is committing infringement, the website will be deemed to be substantially participating in the infringement if it does not remove the infringement within a reasonable period of time.

Justanotherphotographer

« Reply #38 on: August 03, 2016, 08:39 »
0

"15.2:
...Thus, to minimize exposure for contributory copyright infringement, websites should (a) try to reduce actual knowledge of user-generated content by not monitoring their services..."

This is their attitude, they wont check the content. They literally don't want to know because knowing would open them up to being sued. They will only respond to the actual copyright holder.

They may not want to know but if you have notified them and they have responded to you does that not mean they are now aware and by refusing to do anything about it are substantially participatiing as per the corporate law quote by chichikov:

Quote
once a website receives notice that a user is committing infringement, the website will be deemed to be substantially participating in the infringement if it does not remove the infringement within a reasonable period of time.
Absolutely it does and I can't wait for this to to be tested in court so these huge tech companies have to start taking some responsibility for how they make their money. Until then the copyright holders needs to report the specific infringements if we want the page shut down. Have they been informed?

« Reply #39 on: August 03, 2016, 08:57 »
+2
Agencies allow downloading watermarked images so they don't care about this. Maybe that needs to change too.


 

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors