mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com

Service lets you order prints of any Facebook photo

115

While the privacy and permissions surrounding your Facebook-shared photographs have always seemed a bit of a gray area, a new service is pushing the envelope further by helping users print any of their Facebook friends' images -- even on coffee mugs, mouse pads and iPhone cases -- and have them delivered to their doorstep.

Photos At My Door asks you to login with your Facebook account to access all your Facebook photos and those of your friends, which you can then order prints of, or choose to order any number of objects adorned with the photo. 

You knew you were sharing your vacation photos with 500 of your nearest and dearest Facebook friends when you uploaded the images to the social network, but you may not have anticipated those images making their way to a coffee mug without you knowing about it.

Comments

Total comments: 115
NeilRW
By NeilRW (2 months ago)

I think I am going to either close my FB account or at least remove most of my photos.

I think a good CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT is called for here. If its a large enough class, then FB's legal team can have their back broken. Outfits like FB win lawsuits because they outspend their opponents, but enough people in a Class Action case giving a few bucks each could break FB's back once and for all. I'll be damned if I'll let FB make a profit off my copyright work!

0 upvotes
Posterista
By Posterista (7 months ago)

With so many photos now being shared online it's not surprising this issue has been raised. When developing our photo printing site we considered the idea of allowing customers to print their friends images but decided against it.

For us, it's about choice. if you shoot and share then it would be great to print your images but that's where it should stop. We don't feel it's right to reproduce another users photos.

0 upvotes
Camediadude
By Camediadude (Apr 5, 2013)

Kind of vile, but anything to make a buck these days. Ethics are now largely a thing of the past when it comes to business apparently.

0 upvotes
Jalmod90
By Jalmod90 (Apr 2, 2013)

By the looks of things, it seems like the majority of people didnt read Facebook's terms and conditions. How disappointing . . .

3 upvotes
Indio888
By Indio888 (Apr 2, 2013)

To repeat from earlier: No. I'm not happy that photos I upload, which are my copyrighted IP, are being exploited by some unauthorized service so they can compete with me and sell prints. I sell prints myself and a third party does NOT have my permission to do so.

If this company was selling coffee mugs with Disney characters on them, you better believe they would be sued into oblivion.

1 upvote
Eleson
By Eleson (Apr 2, 2013)

But you realize that if you uploaded pictures to fb, you gave away those rights?

1 upvote
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Apr 2, 2013)

You "authorized" by agreeing to the Facebook TOS.

1 upvote
dsjtecserv
By dsjtecserv (Apr 2, 2013)

This urban myth won't die. You didn't not sign away your rights to your photos under the FB TOS. You only granted a license to allow them to display the photos in connection with the service -- which is necessary if you you want your pictures to be visible on a Facebook page. That does NOT permit Facebook or any other agency to sell your photos or convert them for other purposes. The Instagram ploy of a couple months ago attempted to do just that, and it was quickly buried in user outrage. it is likely that this latest FB gambit will see the same reaction.

1 upvote
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Apr 3, 2013)

dsjtecserv — I'm afraid you couldn't be more wrong, there. The only limitation to the transferable rights you are assigning is that they are non-exclusive. That is, you still retain the rights to use and license your work outside of the Facebook channel, but the rights you have licensed to Facebook (and by transfer necessary for the sharing mechanism, which for security reasons means that a separate copy of the image, attached to the Facebook ID that shared the image, needs to be created) are pretty much all-inclusive. Read the Facebook (IP) License again, and try to find the part where it says that printing, etc., is excluded, or where it says that the rights are limited in any way to use within Facebook. Wishing does not make things so; you have assigned the rights already, and even if you subsequently delete the original images, any shared copies still exist and still have that rights assignment attached.

2 upvotes
Clyde Thomas
By Clyde Thomas (Apr 2, 2013)

Hi mandm,

The photographers don't own the copyrights to yearbook photos. They work for companies, and those companies own them. The companies bid for contracts which release rights for reproduction into yearbook... and now days, the photo studios are probably handling the yearbook printing too.

Now there could be a problem if just anyone sent in a yearbook for reproduction. The photo studio could step in to deny that.

No rights are granted for reproduction by individuals, simply because they purchased a copy. Just like you can't legally make a movie copy for a friend, free or not. Purchasing a copy does just that, it gets you a copy. But a purchase of a copy doesn't grant copyrights for further reproduction.

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Apr 2, 2013)

I wonder if Classmates has a deal with Jostens and the other big yearbook publishers. That would be the normal way it is done.

0 upvotes
mandm
By mandm (Apr 5, 2013)

Hi Clyde
Up until the mid-70's the schools in my area (suburb of Minneapolis, MN) would have a deal with a studio and everyone had to get their yearbook photo done by them. The school claimed they wanted the background to be the same for everyone and the printer needed all the photos to be the same size.
That one studio would supply a photographer at no charge for special events, plays and team photos. Parents checking prices at other studios found that they could save money going elsewhere for their kid’s portraits and that’s what ended the deals with just one studio.
That changed in the mid 70's and students could have anyone shoot their photo as long as it was the right size and didn’t have a bright/distracting background. So now the yearbooks have portraits from dozens of photographers and a few parents with a pocket camera.
My kids are all in their 20’s now, but when they were in high school the mailings from photographers totaled 100+ full color postcards to multi page ads.

0 upvotes
mandm
By mandm (Apr 5, 2013)

Most of the yearbooks on ‘Classmates.com’ were sent in by the students who purchased them in high school. I base this on the 20 yearbooks I checked from 10 different states; everyone had the comments from classmates written in them.
So not only has ‘Classmates.com’ scanned the former student’s yearbooks and posted them on their website, they are selling reprints of them. The most current yearbooks I found were from 2003.
They also list why they can do it and what a photographer must do to claim they have violated their copyright.
‘Classmates.com is in compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’ ("DMCA"), we have established the procedure outlined below to address alleged copyright infringement on the Services’.
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of on-line services for copyright infringement by their users’.

0 upvotes
mandm
By mandm (Apr 1, 2013)

The last few years ‘Classmates.com’ has been scanning and selling reprints of school yearbooks! They used to just post announcements for school reunions and help get classmates together, but the last few years they have been asking people to send in their school Yearbooks/Annuals so they can scan every page and post them on their website, they now have thousands of yearbooks to view! They are offering to sell reprints of the yearbooks they have scanned for $99.00; these yearbooks include all the individual student portraits usually shot by real professional photographers. How can they do this?

0 upvotes
Indio888
By Indio888 (Apr 1, 2013)

Ok, FB I'm outta here...again!

0 upvotes
Clyde Thomas
By Clyde Thomas (Apr 1, 2013)

The only rights you have to any artwork that you didn't create, is to look at it. You do not have the rights, by law, to reproduce it.

Reproductions rights are purchased from, and granted by, the creator, for a specific need, time, medium, circulation... Unless of course you purchase a full buyout. Pricey.

2 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Apr 2, 2013)

Sorry, but you're missing the point. You have assigned the appropriate rights by posting the image to Facebook; that you didn't charge for those rights is an oversight on your part.

3 upvotes
Clyde Thomas
By Clyde Thomas (Apr 1, 2013)

Publishing is not equal to copyright ownership.

A lab is supposed to confirm copyrights before printing.

read here:
http://www.ehow.com/facts_6060172_photo-copyright-law.html

More here:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-06-16-digital-picture-problems_x.htm

If I sell my client a Photo Disc, that does not allow them copyright for printing. That's an extra charge, and the law.

The law is there for a reason. It prevents my artwork from being reprinted without my permission. There is a vast chasm between displaying on web for promotion, and reprinting for reproduction service. I assign those rights individually, per client, per need.

That's why togs can sue magazines and newspapers for printing images without permission. A photo lab is no different.

That's why YouTube is forced to pull down certain video materials that don't belong to the publisher.

That's why we sell rights based on time, and circulation. One year usage is less expensive that ten year usage.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Eleson
By Eleson (Apr 2, 2013)

And the t&c at fb ensures the lab that the copyright laws are adhered. I may agree that it sucks , but that's beside the point.

1 upvote
Peksu
By Peksu (Apr 2, 2013)

I'm glad then that I don't live in the USA. Here a photo lab would never be blamed if an individual did not have the rights to a photo. Just like the maker of a car would not be blamed if someone intentionally drove over a person, or million other analogies. Knowing the IP of every printed image is far beyond anyones capability, and completely unreasonable. If the customer owned a cheap printer of his own no one would be there to question his rights. I don't think the printers here even look at the photos, the content is a private matter for the client, probably pictures of family and children most of the time.

Just like you say, the togs sue the magazines and newspapers, not he outsourced printers that produced the copies for their clients.

Comment edited 10 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Apr 2, 2013)

Discovering who owns the rights to a photo is easy, especially if the photographer has taken the time to add his or her contact information in the metadata fields of the image file.
And yes, a printer does have the obligation to know the source of the material he's printing, just as a jewelry store owner has the obligation to know where you got the diamonds you bring to his shop to sell. Are they stolen? Then he's just as culpable as you in the criminal act.
Your argument presupposes that your desires take precedence over the creator's right to earn money from his or her labor. A photograph has worth that is very easily and accurately calculated.

1 upvote
Peksu
By Peksu (Apr 2, 2013)

Easy how? Lets say I bring photos I have taken myself to a print shop to get some copies made; what are the steps the shop workers should undertake to confirm that someone else somewhere on earth wasn't the one who captured them instead, and I'm not operating without permission?

That's like a Monthy Python sketch, it would require omnisciense. Do they have some Major Database of Photography where they can compare the shots to most professional (or not, makes no difference) shots ever captured?

The diamond analogy is moot, people don't just snap diamonds from air. Requiring traceability for a diamond is reasonable, for a simple visual presentation not. And the dealer isn't even analoguous for a photo lab. I would be surprised if printers were liable in any other western nation.

0 upvotes
Eleson
By Eleson (Apr 1, 2013)

Weird discussion.
Who are you all accusing of breaking copyrights?
- The person on fb that orders a print of a picture that you have agreed to share to them?
- Or the print service company that offers the service to print a provided picture on an item?

Think before you share. Or just be happy that someone liked a picture you took anough to spend some cash on printing it.

2 upvotes
kdaphoto
By kdaphoto (Apr 1, 2013)

Eleson,
I don't understand why you think this is weird. It's the law, and both the person ordering the print and the comapnay taking it illegally and printing it are breaking it.

1 upvote
lumigraphics
By lumigraphics (Apr 2, 2013)

No. I'm not happy that photos I upload, which are my copyrighted IP, are being exploited by some unauthorized service so they can compete with me and sell prints. I sell prints myself and a third party does NOT have my permission to do so.

If this company was selling coffee mugs with Disney characters on them, you better believe they would be sued into oblivion.

1 upvote
Eleson
By Eleson (Apr 2, 2013)

As for the law , fb have clear t&c for this.
So if you have posted your images there, you have already given them away. Bad luck!

The Disney analogy doesn't fit. The print service doesn't search fb for pictures to copy and make a buck on. they provide a print service to customers providing picture.

1 upvote
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Apr 1, 2013)

What privacy and permission issues? If something is interesting and can be stolen, it will be. And it's fine if you are looking to promote your work. Otherwise, put it on the web and you have given it away. Unless you want to get into an endless scenario with those Photoshop lawyers.

0 upvotes
Greg Summers
By Greg Summers (Apr 1, 2013)

We now live in a world that profits from so many dishonest things. 80% of the laws in the US are to control morality and you can't.

We shouldn't need to be regulated to be honest. This is, regardless of what is or isn't legal, wrong. It's disgusting period.

2 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Apr 1, 2013)

This is not a surprise at all. Its a logical consequence of how facebook works. You upload images and share them with your friends. Your friends can then use them, e.g. print them. And this includes ordering a mug with the image. Nothing strange at all.

Someone then said that he was friend with National Geographics. Then that's the problem. Of course, you cannot be friend with NG. NG should stay away from facebook.

Comment edited 43 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Timmbits
By Timmbits (Apr 1, 2013)

DPR, stop inserting this nonsense into the DPR feed!

this is retarded! who cares!

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 1, 2013)

You clicked on it and then used outdated derogatory remarks about the disabled. Where does that place you?

1 upvote
RoccoGalatioto
By RoccoGalatioto (Apr 1, 2013)

Nothing surprises me anymore from face book

2 upvotes
CAClark
By CAClark (Mar 31, 2013)

Is this really a shock? You have allowed x number of people on facebook to look at your photos, does it realistically change if they look at it on a mouse mat? Ok, I grant it would be a bit creepy if the photo was of your or your wife lol

Anyone who can view the photos you put on Facebook can save and print them anyway.

I wish people would calm down on the hysteria around privacy. If it bothers you that much, don't put them on the interwebs, it's pretty simple stuff.

5 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Apr 2, 2013)

It's not privacy. It's money. This company is stealing money out of photographers pockets by producing products that should by rights be purchased from the photographer.

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Mar 31, 2013)

The fact of the mater is Photos at My Door/More Photos and/or your Facebook friends do not have ANY reproduction rights to your images just because you put them on Facebook unless Facebook formally transfers to Photos at My Door/More Photos or your friends the license you grant Facebook so it is legal for them to display your photos on their site. Which as far as I can tell Facebook hasn't done and probably never would as it would be against the spirit of the license and an egregious violation of trust.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 31, 2013)

I really doubt a printing service is responsible for rights when a private individual orders prints. Such ordeal is far beyond the capability of any imaginable entity. If you order a print illegally (somehow), you are the one to blame.
Although the legal system in the USA is a mysterious one.

Comment edited 24 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Jun2
By Jun2 (Mar 31, 2013)

But the print service should never have the access to these photos without original owner's consent. So they illegally accessed the photo before the printing.

Comment edited 18 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Apr 1, 2013)

Um, yeah, you have granted reproduction rights, and they transfer automatically. You know how people can "share" your photos? You do understand that in order to do that, a new version of the file, attached to the friend who shared the photo (so that visibility can be managed according to that friend's privacy settings for the account and the image) needs to be created, right? Again, neither Facebook nor this service/app are doing anything you haven't granted license for—you just haven't considered the implications of that license.

3 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Apr 1, 2013)

The printing service does _not_ have access to any photos on Facebook. The customer who orders the pictures must have access to them.

0 upvotes
Guenter Hofstaedter
By Guenter Hofstaedter (Mar 31, 2013)

i deleted all my portfolio pics just to be sure that the only one who sells my pictures is me!
Now they can print my making ofs and my profil pictures if they want ! Have fun !

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 1, 2013)

You showed them! I bet they were DYING to steal all your photos.

3 upvotes
expressivecanvas
By expressivecanvas (Mar 31, 2013)

Just because I have posted photos on Facebook for my family and friends to SEE, does NOT mean I am okay with them printing them, having them printed or put on a tacky mug. Years ago I had gone to a family member's home and found photos of mine hanging on their walls.. pixelated, web-sized photos, printed as 8x10s.. They made my photos look crappy for all visitors to see. I NEVER want this to happen to my art... it is illegal... it is stealing... and, if they had simply asked me for a copy of a photo, I would have gladly had my work printed professionally and sent it to them. The simple fact is they stole my art and their printing job made my work look miserable. This app is theft and I can't help but wonder about the quality. That being said, personally, I feel the publishers of this app want nothing to do with photos, but instead want your Facebook personal info to sell, use, exploit... across international borders... This is clearly written in their "Terms and Conditions".

4 upvotes
88SAL
By 88SAL (Mar 31, 2013)

Agree - this is bad news. Time to start watermarking everything. And facebook utterly obliterates all of your colours and details. Your experience is shameful especially as it was your family who couldnt be bothered to ask you. I prefer Flickr these days for my proper photos.

2 upvotes
Dejan80501
By Dejan80501 (Apr 1, 2013)

You have not been watermarking your photos???! Watermark everything, but is a respectful manner and post photos 800 long

0 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Mar 30, 2013)

It continues to baffle me why photographers on a photography website would advocate stealing from other photographers. That's what you're doing when you say "it's perfectly fine to do take someone else's pictures and do with them what I please. It's only a coffee mug or mouse pad!"
Why don't you go to your friend's bank and casually take out a few thousand Euros? If he's your Facebook friend he won't mind.

8 upvotes
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Mar 31, 2013)

Well, the allegory stinks: Actual loss is different from lost income. But copyright violation is still wrong, it is just not in the same scale as actual theft.

2 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Mar 31, 2013)

The problem isn't the user making a mug. It is Photos at My Door ILEGALLY selling your images to someone else for profit without your consent and/or paying you. What they are doing is no different than walking into an art gallery with a PhaseOne IQ280 and a tripod, photographing some paintings, and then selling prints to people on the street in front of the gallery.

1 upvote
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 31, 2013)

They do not sell you images, you have to provide the images. Just like all printing services out there. They offer you a printing service, and you pay for a printing service.

As for the original post, I haven't seen anyone here say anything along those lines, who has said such? The arguments have mainly been that this service does nothing different from before.

0 upvotes
expressivecanvas
By expressivecanvas (Mar 31, 2013)

They ARE selling my Facebook images at the request of someone in Facebook whom has seen my images, but does not own them, nor have any rights to them. Are you implying that the printing service is not making money on this by selling the prints they were requested to make?

For those who think this app and service is no big deal... Do you also think it is okay for me to go to any Flickr page, or Zenfolio page, or DPReview gallery, or ANY website, and save any photo I like and then have it printed so I can hang it on my wall... giving no credit nor compensation to the true owner of the photo? This is no different that taking a photo from someone else's Facebook account!

This is theft and the App printing service in question is indeed selling and making a profit on this theft!

2 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 31, 2013)

All printing services have been printing anything on order since the dawn of printing. They should all cease operations immediately because somebody could print illegally? They are all profiting on selling illegal prints?

I still haven't heard a _single_ thing why this new app is different from what has always been done. Printing is printing is printing, printers print what customers order from them.
The printing service doesn't bill you according to content, you could print white sheets and they would make the same profit. They sell a service. Putting your content on paper (and mugs).

Edit: Also, for your second paragraph, that has nothing to do with the app or service. You could have always done exactly that, and it has been, and will be, exactly as bad. How does this connect to an app that communicates with a printing service? That now happens to have integration with Facebook? The app is not stealing anything. Is not an automaton that prints random pictures from Facebook.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Mar 30, 2013)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

Laws that hinders me from printing one of my friends photos, that this friend has made available to me, are rather suspicious IMHO.

As Peksu says, its legal in Finland. And Finns are generally quite rational and reasonable.

2 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 30, 2013)

More food for thought: Photos At My Door certainly mainly services customers in the USA, but here's a more global view:

In Finland, creating prints of content legally available (legally visible on the internet) would be completely legal, regardless of who owns the rights. The law limits the number of copies for personal use to "several". For personal, non-commercial and non-public use you could create yourself a mug with any photo.

0 upvotes
Peter K Burian
By Peter K Burian (Mar 30, 2013)

SOLUTION: Top right of your FB page, there's a little roundish icon to the right of your name.

Click on that .... for a drop down menu;

Click privacy settings. Then in the far left column, click Apps, then towards the bottom, Apps Others Use and UNCHECK photos. (I have all the apps unchecked).

OR put an X next to Apps to prevent that app from finding your photos.

5 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Apr 1, 2013)

That works UNTIL one of your friends/fans shares your image. Then it depends on that person's settings. If you don't want your images reproduced, then don't put them anywhere that requires you to grant reproduction and derivative works rights (and the whole sharing mechanism, along with thumbnail generation, relies on those rights).

1 upvote
Peter K Burian
By Peter K Burian (Mar 30, 2013)

This is encouragement of theft. Yes, you can only use Friend's photos but National Geographic is one of my FB friends so I can steal their photos. In fact, FB is encouraging me to do that. How can this be right???

3 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 30, 2013)

Having an internet connection also encourages all kinds of theft.

0 upvotes
Peter K Burian
By Peter K Burian (Mar 30, 2013)

Being on the Internet encourages theft??????

0 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 30, 2013)

Photos, songs, videos, drawings, software everywhere just waiting to be copied. Right click 'n save.
Horrible, horrible invention.

Being able to print images encourages theft?

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
plevyadophy
By plevyadophy (Mar 30, 2013)

@Peksu

There is an important distinction to be drawn between having the capability to steal and being encouraged so to do.

The internet enables us to steal all sorts of things but services like the former Napster (and other peer-to-peer networks) actively encourage it, or at the very least create a climate in which participants in the service feel less inhibited in their desire to steal.

This new print product is now going to create an environment, a mindset, amongst millions that any image you see can be used in any way you see fit without concern for the legalities. That mindset was already there in terms of music downloads but now, due to very public lawsuits and the likes of Naptser being shut down, music lovers now know otherwise.

Unfortunately, that "Napster mindset" still exists in terms of still images.

It is my cynical view that Facebook, and other services, don't like ............. contd below:

1 upvote
plevyadophy
By plevyadophy (Mar 30, 2013)

......contd from above :

copyright laws and the laws are a hindrance to their business model (especially now that they have hungry shareholders to feed and are therefore in desperate need to "grow"). So they invoke Terms of Service, that most people aren't gonna read, that are worded in such a way that they ride roughshod over the rights of copyright holders.

Just as a matter of public misconception, some toy cop security guards, and paranoid parents, think they have a right to stop a photographer taking images in a public place, in time if millions of people get accustomed to this kind of print service there will be an ill-informed notion amongst the public as to what rights a copyright holder has and it will eventually get to the stage that photographers will have no copyright simply because flouting copyright will become routine; and this of course suits the likes of Facebook and similar services.

Do I have any serious images on Facebook? No way!!

0 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 31, 2013)

Where you draw the line between capability and encouragement is completely subjective. P2P-networks don't encourage stealing any more than Google searches in my mind, if people use amazing technology for ill means, that is a problem with them and not the technology.

You could draw the line anywhere, there is no fundamental difference between DPreview site, Google image search, Pirate Bay, Photos At My Door, Facebook itself or just internet in general. They are technologies and/or services, they do not encourage anything (except for you to use them for something, otherwise they would not exist).

Edit: Also, it hasn't yet been pointed out what this "encouragement" is that Photos At My Door is doing is, I sure can't see it. They just print.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Mark Seibold
By Mark Seibold (Mar 30, 2013)

Isn't technology wonderful ?!
Just like Orwell said they'd plan it . . .
What more could we ask for?
People upload all their images for free to Facebook; what did they expect? For Facebook to pay them for using ones images? That would be an Average American Consumers Dream but you know this is corporate, ... don't you?

4 upvotes
map1273
By map1273 (Mar 30, 2013)

How can this be legal?

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (Mar 30, 2013)

.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
PhotoKhan
By PhotoKhan (Mar 30, 2013)

Seeing things like this popping-up is a bit like reading that story about Phil Bronstein entering a Komodo dragon enclosure, taking his shoes off to reveal white rat look-alike white socks to an animal with a brain size slightly larger than a walnut and then being surprised to find himself with a bleeding foot trapped in the creature's mouth.

Always fascinating...

PK

4 upvotes
MarkInSF
By MarkInSF (Mar 30, 2013)

You forgot the interesting part, that the backstage zoo tour was a birthday treat from Bronstein's wife, Sharon Stone. That's exactly what I'd expect for my birthday present from Sharon Stone - a giant lizard eating half of my foot. Komodo dragons also have filthy mouths and their bites often cause nasty infections. Maybe we can send a Komodo dragon after the head of this photo printing service. He is adding so much to our culture.

0 upvotes
Tan68
By Tan68 (Mar 31, 2013)

I hadn't heard about this. I don't know who Phil is but since S. Stone was mentioned, I guess he is a celebrity.

The FB horse is out of the gate and feeding oats to the neighbors sheep. No point in worrying about it, I guess... I want to know more about Phil.

I can sorta understand wanting to go in a Komodo dragon enclosure. I mean, 'hey, see what i can do', and all that.

What I want to know is why Phil decided to become partially undressed...

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Apr 1, 2013)

The Komodo dragon actually kills most often by waiting for the prey to die of infection.

I'm trying to see how this relates to the story, though. Is it perhaps a wish that facebook is dying slowly?

0 upvotes
daMatrix
By daMatrix (Mar 30, 2013)

Colin K. Work and others who try to find out how to limit external usage of images by through FB friends;
If you have news how to, please share it here.

Tanks

0 upvotes
Rupert Bottomsworth
By Rupert Bottomsworth (Mar 30, 2013)

Can it get any more banal?

1 upvote
Biological_Viewfinder
By Biological_Viewfinder (Mar 30, 2013)

I love DPReview, but the news feed is starting to get stupid.

6 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 30, 2013)

I'm not on Facebook so I'm probably missing something, but what stopped people from downloading those Facebook photos before (and then printing them)?

1 upvote
PhotoKhan
By PhotoKhan (Mar 30, 2013)

Nothing.

...but this is a service. A commercial one.

PK

2 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 30, 2013)

I still don't see the difference. If you want to print photos from Facebook, now you just can choose them easier. Access is the same. The printing services are always commercial.

0 upvotes
Peter K Burian
By Peter K Burian (Mar 30, 2013)

i.e. You want to steal photos?? Some of my facebook friends are professional photographers. They do not post photos so that people can steal them and make prints of them. Fortunately, there is a way to block services from getting access to your FB photos.

0 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 30, 2013)

That is the most absurd leap of logic I've seen all... day, and I've been on the internet.

You can print your own photos from Facebook. Just like you could before. Or you can print other people's photos with permission. Just like you could before. Or one could break the law (if there locally is such law) and print other people's photos without permission. Just like before.

How is this news?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Mar 30, 2013)

Peter, you've been around long enough (and certainly have been in the pro game long enough) to have gained a little more of an intuition around copyright and licenses by now. On Facebook, you are granting a license for your images to be used this way via the "Facebook (IP) License".

It's not "stealing" if you give it away, and the service/app isn't selling your images, they're selling a print service and an end product of that print service to people who already have your permission to create compilations and derivative works of your IP.

We've just won a MAJOR victory here in the Great White North by having section 10.2(a) of the Copyright Act voided thanks to PPoC and CAPIC. It's up to us, now, to make sure we aren't giving away what we have a right to keep.

2 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Mar 30, 2013)

Peksu - in many countries it is illegal to download/copy/use images unless you have been granted an explicit right to do so. I'm involved with an internet hosting provider here in North America, and one of the most frequent reasons we have for terminating accounts is repeated violations of US copyright law by people who are doing things that would be perfectly legal in parts of Europe. Since the host is in the US and subject to US law (and individual accounts are only subject to other national law if a country-code top-level domain is used), that's the law we have to go by. We don't even offer free hosting accounts to most of Europe anymore due to the legal and administrative costs of providing service to people who assume that what's legal at home is legal on our servers. (Most printers here won't touch an image that has copyright info in the EXIF or even *looks* professional unless you can provide proof of license.)

1 upvote
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 31, 2013)

Stan,
I haven't said otherwise. But for example, if you upload a photo in USA, I could over here make a print of it for myself completely legally. Not perhaps through an American printing service, but that would be weird anyway.
If my printing service started requesting proofs of license from me, I would change providers pretty fast. Amazing if that's how it works over there.

On a third note, I guess in USA it is highly illegal to make a desktop wallpaper out of any image under any kind of copyright (that wallpaper is a copy). I couldn't imagine some child being sued over such. That's why it's legal to make some copies for personal use in Finland, it just feels reasonable.

0 upvotes
Tan68
By Tan68 (Mar 31, 2013)

yeah, i think wondered the same. i am also not a FB person.. i started to feel indignant anyway. really, though, i am not surprised.

nothing much different than the service makes it easier.

a fellow below points out it ain't theft if you give it away. that is right. it sounds so.. promiscuous... an image of FB with smeared bright red lipstick, cigarette dangling from mouth, and hands on hips just popped in my mind.. unwanted.

i thought to hang around to see if i can learn more about Phil's foot and the dragon. i think i will leave, instead..

go somewhere and try to figure out whether pimp or whore is a better description for .... i worry i have said enough to be banned from something. somewhere.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
ARShutterbug
By ARShutterbug (Mar 30, 2013)

This looks like just another way to suck uploaded photos from Facebook, and print them royalty-free. The insult is that they are facilitating and encouraging this activity.

2 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Mar 30, 2013)

So are you, by uploading images to a site that specifically states that you are granting a transferable license to do so. If you don't want your images used that way, don't put them anywhere where "sharing" is part of the deal, and make sure that you are only granting/leasing rights that you actually intend to grant.

4 upvotes
Yidahoo
By Yidahoo (Mar 30, 2013)

As usual there seems to be a fair bit of paranoia here. Its not made clear, but I would assume it's a Facebook App that you, and your friends would have to install and approve before any printing of images would occur. Don't install the app, and your pictures wont be printed.

0 upvotes
Colin K. Work
By Colin K. Work (Mar 30, 2013)

Well I tried it. Basically I have to approve the app on my account, but it then happily added many of my "friends" images to a gallery ... but not all, so I presume there is a way of stopping it seeing your photos. Aside from the legal/ethical issue, I also don't like the fact that it let me select a 20x30 canvas from a 500px image - and claimed that the quality was "medium!". I imagine anyone using the service could be in for some disappointments which could lead to hassles for the original photographer.

2 upvotes
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Mar 30, 2013)

Nope. You just put the app on your computer and you're free to steal as many photos as you like.

0 upvotes
HiRez
By HiRez (Mar 30, 2013)

This is just stupid, why wouldn't you just use CafePresse, who will print ANY photo on just about ANYTHING? And you DON'T have to log into FaceBook to use it!!

2 upvotes
spqr_ca
By spqr_ca (Mar 30, 2013)

I smell a lawsuit a brewin' here. I retain copyright, nobody may print my images without my consent and I will sue if necessary. I see, however, from their terms that they're trying to absolve themselves of risk in this area, but I suspect that a good lawyer would still nail them to the wall on this.

1 upvote
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Mar 30, 2013)

Sure, you retain copyright... but you've already granted a license for this use. That you didn't consider the implications of that license doesn't matter.

2 upvotes
spqr_ca
By spqr_ca (Mar 31, 2013)

Yep... I just re-read the terms and the transferrable sublicense is what lets them in. I'm now very close to doing a delete on all my Facebook images.

0 upvotes
NeilRW
By NeilRW (2 months ago)

spqr_ca I think I am going to either close my FB account or at least remove most of my photos.

I think a good CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT is called for here. If its a large enough class, then FB's legal team can have their back broken. Outfits like FB win lawsuits because they outspend their opponents, but enough people in a Class Action case giving a few bucks each could break FB's back once and for all. I'll be damned if I'll let FB make a profit off my copyright work!

0 upvotes
tarnumf
By tarnumf (Mar 30, 2013)

For all you, f-o-o-l-s: read FB fine print! They hold ultimate copyright for any picture you upload.

1 upvote
Paul Tansley
By Paul Tansley (Mar 30, 2013)

Nope - you need to read their Terms again. They do NOT hold copyright of your images at all. What you have given them by uploading your images is "Usage Rights" which is the right for Facebook and its subsidiary companies to use the images. You still own the Copyright as you are the person who took the image (unless you uploaded someone else's image of course - in which case you probably had no permission to.)

What this means is although Facebook can copy your image, your friends and family have NO RIGHT to. They do not have any usage rights themselves. So you would have every right to sue them for usage. Whether you ever would is an entirely different matter - but that is how the law stands. It is a totally incorrect statement to say Facebook own the copyright - they do not.

The right to copy (usage rights) and the Copyright may both sound similar, but they are not the same thing. You can read more about the subject here.

http://paultansleyphotography.com/blog/?p=162

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
LiChung Liu
By LiChung Liu (Mar 30, 2013)

thanks for the detail. I am not a photographer, but based on what you said, what about the following logic:

1. FB, and its subsidiaries, get the rights of use of your photo for display.
2. FB and its subsidiaries, provides a way for your photo to be displayed on a mug.
3a. People technically buy the mug, not the photo. They themselves did not take the steps to download a copy and send to another service for print.
3b. FB technically did not produce your photo for sell. Rather, they provide a service for which people to access photo on another medium. (I'm uncertain of the following point) In addition FB may not even receive profit from this transaction, their goal is simply to provide a end-to-end service to increase the number photos uploaded to them.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Mar 30, 2013)

Paul, you apparently missed this part of the TOS:

" 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)"

The words "transferable" and "sub-licensable" mean that yes, you ARE granting those rights to your friends, and they can grant them to their friends, and so on and so on. Your retention of copyright simply means that you *can* separately license your work outside of the Facebook realm, but the rights you granted on Facebook are contagious, so any use that originated on Facebook (and that doesn't cause harm that would be covered under libel law and so forth) is permitted by the license you granted.

Copyright is hard, people. Don't assume things; take the time to actually learn, and get legal advice if usage rights actually matter to you and you aren't sure.

1 upvote
Paul B Jones
By Paul B Jones (Mar 31, 2013)

People, you need to be paying attention to Stan Rogers.

3 upvotes
Ed/Chicago
By Ed/Chicago (Mar 31, 2013)

I haven't granted fb any rights because I don't belong to fb. However, I have emailed pics to friends. If they post them to fb it is without my permission, and fb has no right to those pics. So, if I find out this is the case, posted and printed, then I can do something about it. If pics are posted on fb, with recognizable faces, then fb should require signed releases from those in the pics when used commercially.

0 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Apr 1, 2013)

Ed is the first person here to bring up a case in which rights are *not* granted (and for which a DMCA takedown notice would be in order). However, while you can do a sort of cease-and-desist, it would be difficult to collect damages from anyone downstream (including an online on-demand printing service) since the original uploaders are representing themselves as having the relevant rights in the images.

(And it's often the case that they do have those rights; it's "normal" for a wedding/portrait/head shot photographer to supply small low-rez files specifically for that purpose, although, again, s/he may not have considered all of the implications of that license. Small, visibly watermarked and heavily shared, they're great ads but they make lousy "real" prints. But if you think of them as free advertising and treat them that way from the get-go, it's easy to make peace with the idea.)

0 upvotes
expressivecanvas
By expressivecanvas (Mar 30, 2013)

My photos are now deleted from Facebook. I'm now all that much closer to simply abandoning Facebook altogether.

1 upvote
rfsIII
By rfsIII (Mar 30, 2013)

This is a dream come true for stalkers, psychotic ex-husbands, and pedophiles. Who advised them that this was a good idea?

0 upvotes
Peksu
By Peksu (Mar 31, 2013)

I just can't shake the image of some stalker eyeballing me from a cafe across the street drinking from a mug with my face printed on it.

1 upvote
Tan68
By Tan68 (Mar 31, 2013)

more unwanted images, Peksu!

as a general comment: i don't think the service makes Possible anything that wasn't possible before. people could always grab images and have mugs made.

now, people may not have Thought about doing that... this new app certainly brings the possibilities to light.

1 upvote
Kris in CT
By Kris in CT (Mar 30, 2013)

Guess it might be time to pull my FB photo page. This is really F***D up if they think they can print my images with no royalty involved!

0 upvotes
Benarm
By Benarm (Mar 30, 2013)

the land of the free and the brave...

3 upvotes
Lil g
By Lil g (Mar 30, 2013)

Can I order the mug shown here

3 upvotes
Forty Photography
By Forty Photography (Mar 30, 2013)

Dayum!!!

1 upvote
zos xavius
By zos xavius (Mar 29, 2013)

F*** THAT! This company does not have permission to print my work. If they do it will be their lawsuit!

1 upvote
JadedGamer
By JadedGamer (Mar 30, 2013)

Sorry, but by uploading to FB you gave them a non-exclusive, transferable right to do pretty much anything they want with the pictures. Note the "transferable" there... FB is just granting the app developer the rights to the pictures, as per the TOS they can.

0 upvotes
StanRogers
By StanRogers (Mar 30, 2013)

zos xavius -- You would be right, except that they DO have your permission.

jadedGamer -- Very close, but not quite. Facebook isn't granting rights to the app/business; your friends and/or likers are. The Facebook terms of service mean that you have given Facebook permission to give your friends/likers (or everybody, if you've tagged the image as "public") permission to use the image. (And it's contagious. If your friends share the image, they are granting rights to all of their friends/likers, and so on.) The app is just a service by which they can exercise those rights, which include giving permission to the printer to print the images.

Folks, you really need to start considering the implications of the licenses you grant to your work. If you don't know what you're doing, it's probably best not to do it.

1 upvote
FrankoManno
By FrankoManno (Mar 30, 2013)

. . . and that's why almost all photos I upload to facebook are no more than 96 dpi.

I don't mind others using/sharing my photos, but if anyone other than me is making money off my photos, is a completely different story.

0 upvotes
Mike Griffin
By Mike Griffin (Mar 30, 2013)

96 dpi means squat if the image is 5056 x 3370 pixels

3 upvotes
ianm2k4
By ianm2k4 (Mar 31, 2013)

Indeed.. Copyright theft is theft plain and simple.

1 upvote
CameraCarl
By CameraCarl (Mar 31, 2013)

Yet another reason I'm glad I didn't get swept up in all this Twitter/Facebook/Instagram stuff.

2 upvotes
Aeros
By Aeros (Apr 5, 2013)

A couple of years back I sued a Japanese owned oil company, for copyright infringement of my rights in and to a logo I designed and they used but refused payment. I won an out of court settlement far in excess of the amount I would have charged them as my regular fee. They ended up paying many thousands more and a staggering amount in legal fees.

The best weapon I had, was not to use a lawyer and to become fully conversant with the Copyright Act. I believe FB would not survive a challenge in court for Copyright infringement based on their TOS. The Intellectual rights may be transferred via a written and signed agreement (required by law) but Moral rights are not transferable, but remain with the true author for life plus fifty years after the death of the author, the rights belong to the author’s estate.

continued....

0 upvotes
Aeros
By Aeros (Apr 5, 2013)

Continued from previous post...

Bottom line, IMHO FB fails in its assertion to usage of copyright protected works, by not having written and signed agreements between the True Author and FB. To sell the rights to a third party is Copyright Infringement of Moral rights on two counts Conversion and Distortion. I am not a lawyer and this is my personal opinion, it’s worthy to note that I did win my case without a lawyer.

0 upvotes
NeilRW
By NeilRW (2 months ago)

I think a good CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT is called for here. If its a large enough class, then FB's legal team can have their back broken. Outfits like FB win lawsuits because they outspend their opponents, but enough people in a Class Action case giving a few bucks each could break FB's back once and for all. I'll be damned if I'll let FB make a profit off my copyright work!

0 upvotes
Total comments: 115
About us
Sitemap
Connect