pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: microstock photo been misused on facebook  (Read 6747 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 02, 2011, 00:38 »
0
hi everyone

i recently came cross a problem, one of my model saw her photo been used by someone else on facebook as profile photo. i wonder in this case what can we do to stop it? any suggestions please?


ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2011, 02:39 »
0
hi everyone
i recently came cross a problem, one of my model saw her photo been used by someone else on facebook as profile photo. i wonder in this case what can we do to stop it? any suggestions please?
If you have no reason to think that the photo was bought illegally (eg watermarked), there may be nothing you can do, i.e. it's probably a legitimate use. Check the end use t&c from the agency they bought it from.
If watermarked, contact the agency concerned.

« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2011, 03:25 »
0

[/quote]
If you have no reason to think that the photo was bought illegally (eg watermarked), there may be nothing you can do, i.e. it's probably a legitimate use. Check the end use t&c from the agency they bought it from.
If watermarked, contact the agency concerned.
[/quote]

the photo is not watermarked. this maybe legal but feels wrong.

« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2011, 03:27 »
0
There's plenty of members here that use images of movie stars, etc as their avatar (which are available within MSG). Ok, they're not claiming to be the star or that the image is of themselves but the useage is not so different.

« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2011, 03:49 »
0
On the other hand, for example SS says:
YOU MAY NOT:
Use an Image together with pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or immoral content or in such a manner that it infringes upon any third party's trademark or intellectual property.


Fake profiles on Facebook may not be unlawful but they are definitely immoral.

« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2011, 04:03 »
0
Does FB require that we upload only image we have copyrights on?

« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2011, 04:12 »
0
....If you repeatedly infringe other people's intellectual property rights, we will disable your account when appropriate....

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.

If I understand it right, no buyer should put images on Facebook as he cannot grant the licence.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 04:15 by jm73 »

« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2011, 04:14 »
0
You could also contact FB, I don't think the terms of FB allows you to have a "fake" profile picture.

The nice way would to try contact the person that has uploaded the picture, explain the situation and tell them that it would be wise to remove the image.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 04:17 by Perry »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2011, 04:25 »
0
On the other hand, for example SS says:
YOU MAY NOT:
Use an Image together with pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or immoral content or in such a manner that it infringes upon any third party's trademark or intellectual property.


Fake profiles on Facebook may not be unlawful but they are definitely immoral.
Any more immoral than putting a stock photo of a girl with lovely hair on a shampoo ad implying that the hair is shiny because of the product? Etc etc etc. In some countries that would be a breach of advertising standards legislation, but it's apparently OK in others, and not a breach of stock rules.

H*ck, iStock's rules specifically forbid buyers to "use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour", but with many, many in-uses found which do just that, it's clear they have no interest in enforcing the rule. :-(
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 04:32 by ShadySue »

« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2011, 04:27 »
0
On the other hand, for example SS says:
YOU MAY NOT:
Use an Image together with pornographic, defamatory, or otherwise unlawful or immoral content or in such a manner that it infringes upon any third party's trademark or intellectual property.


Fake profiles on Facebook may not be unlawful but they are definitely immoral.
Any jore immoral than putting a stock photo of a girl with lovely hair on a shampoo ad claiming (or even implying) that the hair is shiny because of the product? Etc etc etc.

OK. It may not be immoral but forbidden :-)
"You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission."

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2011, 04:36 »
0
OK. It may not be immoral but forbidden :-)
"You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission."
Is the person saying, "this is me"? Or is it just a photo on her profile page? Allegedly (in a magazine I just bought about social networking, since I'm so 20th century as not to participate in it yet) many people put a celeb photo on their profile.
Anyway, while I don't necessarily like that use, there are many other perfectly legitimate uses for stock photos that IMO would be far worse. Therefore I have no self-portraits in my port.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 05:06 by ShadySue »

« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2011, 04:49 »
0
Sorry.  I don't see anything immoral or illegal about using an image of someone/thing other that you.

Does Facebook (or ANY) site require you to grant a license to them upon upload? Yes, they all do.  Do they (ALL) say you need to be the copyright holder to do so?  Yes.  Is this really practical in every example.  Not really.  Is every image searched for by upload on Google image owned by the person searching?  No way.  If they licensed it from a site, I can think of worse uses, as mentioned.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 04:59 by sjlocke »

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2011, 05:21 »
0
hi everyone
i recently came cross a problem, one of my model saw her photo been used by someone else on facebook as profile photo. i wonder in this case what can we do to stop it? any suggestions please?
To be honest, if that's upsetting her so much, I don't think she understood what the MR allows. It may be you didn't take care to give her 'worst case scenarios'. It may be that you'd be best to take down her photos, or at least talk her through legitimate uses. And if you can't think what these might be, take a long, hard look at some 'in use' threads, e.g. on iStock. I don't know if these exist on other sites.
For example a few years back on iStock there was an 'issue' where a model photographed in a restaurant was used to illustrate an article on high class call girls, unfortunately in the city where she lives and works as an educator. I personally don't think that was a legitimate use according to iStock's terms and conditions, at least without a 'posed by model' disclaimer; but AFAIK, no action was taken. (I did have to wonder why a professional [i.e. not a professional model] would do stock modelling, but that's none of my business, really.)
For example, if I did have a photo of me up, I can only imagine three uses:
1. As a 'before' picture for a facelift, with a photoshopped 'after' photo.
2. As a 'before' picture for a tummy tuck, with a photoshopped 'after' photo. (Actually, I can pull my tummy in to look like some existing before and after pictures. For about five seconds.)
3. "Does your wife look like this? You need Viagra!"
All of which I guess would be uses that iStock wouldn't pursue. Any models you use need to know all that and more.

Noodles

« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2011, 06:25 »
0
You could also contact FB, I don't think the terms of FB allows you to have a "fake" profile picture.

The nice way would to try contact the person that has uploaded the picture, explain the situation and tell them that it would be wise to remove the image.

I wouldn't threaten, just explain the situation and ask nicely. I'm sure most people would understand.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2011, 06:56 »
0
You could also contact FB, I don't think the terms of FB allows you to have a "fake" profile picture.

The nice way would to try contact the person that has uploaded the picture, explain the situation and tell them that it would be wise to remove the image.

I wouldn't threaten, just explain the situation and ask nicely. I'm sure most people would understand.
I'm sure they wouldn't; they bought a file and probably used it within the t&c, unless they actually said, "this is me" or somesuch. It might help if you refunded the full cost of the file, possibly.
What if they complain to the agency where they bought it?
What's your model going to do if her image is used to promote a service, product or cause she doesn't agree with?
« Last Edit: August 02, 2011, 15:13 by ShadySue »

« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2011, 09:27 »
0
People put photos of flowers, sunsets, their dog, their cat, their horse, their car, their motorcycle, and on and on, for their profile picture. Does that mean they are saying any of those are self-portraits? I once declined the friendship request of someone who had a dog's a-hole as their profile picture. I don't think there's any rule on FB that says your profile photo has to be of YOU. Unless the person puts a caption on the photo that says "This is me" I don't think you can claim unfair usage.

« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2011, 02:12 »
0
H*ck, iStock's rules specifically forbid buyers to "use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour", but with many, many in-uses found which do just that, it's clear they have no interest in enforcing the rule. :-(

That's so odd. The model signs a release in order to allow their image to be used to promote products and services AND at the same can't look like they're endorsing the products or services


« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2011, 09:10 »
0
H*ck, iStock's rules specifically forbid buyers to "use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour", but with many, many in-uses found which do just that, it's clear they have no interest in enforcing the rule. :-(

That's so odd. The model signs a release in order to allow their image to be used to promote products and services AND at the same can't look like they're endorsing the products or services

Normally, that's more like "Hi, I'm Bob and I use Glow-Brite Toothpaste!", not just a background image.

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2011, 09:36 »
0
H*ck, iStock's rules specifically forbid buyers to "use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour", but with many, many in-uses found which do just that, it's clear they have no interest in enforcing the rule. :-(

That's so odd. The model signs a release in order to allow their image to be used to promote products and services AND at the same can't look like they're endorsing the products or services

Normally, that's more like "Hi, I'm Bob and I use Glow-Brite Toothpaste!", not just a background image.
That seems to be fine too. Way back (2007?) there was an 'in-use' with a young girl in a car with keys in her hand and a big smile and a slogan like, "I got my first car insurance from X".
Thought it was odd that that was acceptable then, and still do.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2011, 10:37 by ShadySue »

« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2011, 10:33 »
0
People put photos of flowers, sunsets, their dog, their cat, their horse, their car, their motorcycle, and on and on, for their profile picture. Does that mean they are saying any of those are self-portraits? I once declined the friendship request of someone who had a dog's a-hole as their profile picture. I don't think there's any rule on FB that says your profile photo has to be of YOU. Unless the person puts a caption on the photo that says "This is me" I don't think you can claim unfair usage.

I didn't mean someone who has Michael Jackson as his profile photo. The problem is that fake profiles are usually used to make as many "friends" as possible, write to them couple words, then creating groups and inserting links and driving traffic to own website (usually "funny" photos or videos, porn sites...) Yes, I think that it is immoral to add someone to friends list or write to teens pretending I'm twenty years old sexy blond but being fifty years old hairy guy. This is the reason why Facebook often closes profiles with xxxx friends because they are supposed to be a fake. You should use "artist page" or something like that but not personal profile if you want to make thousands of friends.

« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2011, 10:45 »
0
If you file a DMCA takedown notice through Facebook, they'll probably remove it with no questions asked.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
5051 Views
Last post June 10, 2006, 21:35
by jjneff
12 Replies
6211 Views
Last post March 07, 2009, 11:16
by Rahul Pathak
9 Replies
4167 Views
Last post February 22, 2012, 02:24
by Milinz
22 Replies
5792 Views
Last post February 27, 2012, 01:31
by RacePhoto
4 Replies
3049 Views
Last post November 12, 2018, 12:12
by BrunoG

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle