Which Social Networking site wont steal my photos!

heartyfisher

I have been on facebook for a while and its been good but their new versions of "fine print" keeps eroding my rights especially on photos. is there any photo sharing site that is better? what about Google+ or flickr or nikon's photo sharing site(cant remember the name) ? any others? I also use deviantart which seems to have good privacy and rights policies .. but that gets blocked in some places and its not really a site where you place photos of your granny dancing to "barbarbar" or finger nails.. ;-)

PB_PM

Basically the answer is, they all will. Nothing in life is really free. These companies sell information to stay in business, plain and simple.

sevencrossing

Is there is good reason why any one should want steal a photo of your granny dancing to "barbarbar"

blackfox

LOL i used to worry about it ,i post all my pics on flickr ,some are probably uplifted but through there i have had photos on BBC websites ,had photos published in books and magazines and in the national press .if someone wants to steal your work they will so why worry .

p.s wanna buy some pics of your granny doing the barbarbar LOL

heartyfisher

Is there is good reason why any one should want steal a photo of your granny dancing to "barbarbar"

LOL ! thats something else entirely .. that wasn't so much about the stealing of the photo.. but that uploading that kind of photo onto deviant art (which has good copyright protection) is not the best as the "next" button may bring up a photo with a different kind of granny with a few less clothes in a different kind of bar .. ;-)

NSXTypeR

That's why I stopped posting to Facebook. I only post to Flickr if at all, and they all don't contain photos of my family.

Google Plus I post to every so often, but that's because my family uses Google Plus.

tc88

Is there is good reason why any one should want steal a photo of your granny dancing to "barbarbar"

Seven, you never know. Check out some of the most expensive pictures sold. While I wouldn't care to take a second look at any of those pictures, maybe down the road, a photo of granny dancing to "barbarbar" can be worth something.

http://www.photographytalk.com/photography-articles/3004-the-19-most-expensive-photographs-ever-sold

TaoTeJared

Let's be clear - I have never ran into a sharing site that I couldn't in some way download a photo, screenshot it, or copy it in some way. The only way to ensure that it can't be "stolen" is not to upload it.

FB: I think what heartyfisher is referring to is that Facebook keeps sneaking in language to be able to offer images to sell if someone wants to purchase the rights. All of it is coming from the emergence of news agencies scouting the web for photos of the "hot story now." There possibly be a stock agency that might want a photo every once in a blue moon, but there are far easier sites for them to pull that from.

Flickr (if you choose) will sell your photos for you if someone want's it. I'm not sure how that works, but you can choose this option are suppose to be paid for it - probably all $3.00 worth.

G+: I watched a Kelby video maybe a year ago and at that time FB had started this "we can sell anything" and Google went the other way and protected the photographers rights. That is why all the celebrity photographers primarily use Google+. (HUGE NOTE - that was at the time & I don't know if that has changed.)

@heartyfisher: You keep mentioning deviant art "has the most rights." This may be the case, but it is also one of the most stolen from sites on the web where people's images show up all over the world. "Rights" don't mean anything unless you have the tens-hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate others who take it.

Reality check: Silently I think most all photographers would love to have their image "stolen" (sold and used for something) - there are few better ways to affirm you are good! There is this common delusion that somehow an image (that was never going to make money) has an intrinsic value worth hundreds of thousands of dollars and that if taken, you have "lost something." 1) If you look at Stock agencies, most images can be purchased for $5 for single use and less than $2,000 for all rights and ownership (or whatever the actual phrasing is.) 2) If it is taken - you may actually make some money off of something that you never would have. 3) How exactly are you going to find out if it was sold, or stolen? How many hours a day are you going to dedicate to finding that out? In reality there are so many stock outlets that sell images for so cheap, and make it so easy, that almost no company is going to FB or some other hosting site to steal or buy an image for a new big ad campaign (where the money is at.)

Likewise, FB doesn't want to become a stock agency and keep track of billions of photos that are uploaded and removed at random. The goal really is to "cover their asses" legally (or way future, to make money) on current events and news stories where the opportunity to use a shot is so time limited, it is not reasonable to contact the holder. The Boston bombers is a case in point - all the current news was reported off of Twitter posts - not reporters on the ground. As we have seen in other threads news agencies are dropping photographers/reporters and are now looking to social media for the "next breaking news" event for details and images.

Ade

Timely topic:

"Sept 8, 2013 -- American Society of Media Photographers warns about new Facebook T&Cs

The American Society of Media Photographers has warned its members to 'beware' Facebook's proposed new terms of service, which - it claims - would allow the social media giant to 'exploit your name, likeness, content, images, private information, and personal brand by using it in advertising and in commercial and sponsored content - without any compensation to you'."

More from dpreview.com.

Personally, I'd rather have people steal my pictures, view them, enjoy them -- than having them hidden in obscurity. I should make a habit of posting more of them, the good ones and the bad ones.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

This is a touchy subject: Coincidence becoming a opportunity. On the amateur side, Zapruder and his 8mm camera in Dallas 1963 being the 'classic' example, and on the professional side perhaps Eddie Adams's photo of the executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon. Both were 'lucky' shots.

These iconic images made a great deal of cash over years, and while I doubt that FB or the other sites worry about that cash pile (their piles of cash are doing nicely), they don't want legal battles over the piles of cash over rights to the cash in the future.

The struggle is where to pay the piper. Right now Folks would like to claim that no one is able to pay anyone, so no one can get paid.

My best,

Mike

Vipmediastar_JZ

I had my work stolen before. Defaced. Misused. Not once but multiple times. It is a pain having to deal with this situations. The only thing I can do is just add a watermark. While the watermark helps so much it is something I have to do.
Even when I give pictures to somebody I tell them if it's for online use they have to use the watermark. Sometimes when they crop the watermark is lost but I ask them to give me a credit.

Another thing that I do is post on my blog and share the link on Facebook and tag the people.
I have decided that for me a FB fan page is not the best way to go. Maybe I'll change my mind in the future but my galley blog post seem to work fine.

safyre

Wow, so many overprotective people in here. Guys, please get with the times, social media is a GOOD thing for photographers. I have gotten more bookings from Facebook/Instagram than any other traditional media outlet. If people want to steal your images, it doesn't matter where you put them, they will steal it. But newsflash, there's trillions and more images out there. So ask yourself why in the world would they want to 'steal' your images out of all of them? If they did, I'd consider myself lucky enough to start buying lotto tickets. And even if people did use your images, it's still publicity for you! Side example: Why do you think Microsoft doesn't care about Piracy? Because it increases their market share anyways, which leads to more sales. Think the same in terms of photographs. If you're a professional/working to become one, social media is a huge market that can't be ignored. If you're an amateur, social media is a great way to show people your images and possibly get people to start booking you. If you're so afraid of people stealing your stuff and your privacy, you might as well not be on the internet period.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

@safyre - there are more lenses to filter the view of how one looks at this than yours.

If you're a photographer looking to book jobs, social media is certainly your best friend and the more people that post your terrific shots the more bookings you'll get.

But if you're shooting for stock or for publication of any kind, maintaining your long game for publishing rights is a really big thing. Selling and reselling and reselling ad nauseam can really be huge dollars for some rare shooters.

I think the real question was whether 'websites' were participating in the thief, and I don't think they are. The latest thing from Facebook was an attempt to avoid being involved with any litigation with third party thief. FB doesn't want to have to defend itself as a publisher of content - frankly, I think they'll find themselves in court if pressured by the right lawyer and the right jurisdiction and content.

I also strongly disagree with your suggestion that Microsoft or any software company wouldn't care about piracy - they do (and in spades). A young friend of mine was one of the team that developed the MS video CODEC - piracy is a huge issue. I have helped develop Adobe and Corel software and ditto there.

You won't find much love in the 'piracy is your friend' camp from those companies. ;-)

Finally, and most importantly, I would like to underline the right _shooter_. I taught writing along with photography and in both skills, my students were venomously protective of their rights, whether of a ten-line free-verse poem or a B&W picture of a dead cat. To each his or her own, but at some point you do have to learn to develop a sense of taste and kill your darlings so you can really create something worthwhile.

My best,

Mike

Vipmediastar_JZ

Probably unrelated but in my senior year of high school we submitted a poem as part of our language arts final to a poetry contest that was going to be published and presented to the First Lady at the time.

My teacher liked the poem and yelled at me for not putting my name at the end of the poem and made me put my name.
My poem was one of 3% selected from all participating highs schools in the nation.
The school ordered two books one for me and one for the school library.

My relative asked for a poem to submit to her teacher. She said lied to me about how my name would stay on the poem. She put her name and my poem was published in a magazine with her name and was awarded money.

Rule #1 put your name and protect it or somebody else will profit from it.

Google the stolen scream but if you want I'll post an article
http://fstoppers.com/fstoppers-original-the-stolen-scream

My photos were defaced. I dont want to see my face or relative or clients faced turned into a meme.

My goal in photography is to get published and to sell prints so I would try my best to protect my work.

A client misused my work. Even after failed attempts to explain copyrights I wasted 3 months in the end he still used a photo out of contract and the publishing company made him look like a Simpson's character with brown tint as his skin tone. His manager directly told me that the was the worst Photoshop he had seen.

So if being overprotected is frowned upon wait until you spend hours trying to fix issues.
I know some people dont care and more power to them if that makes them happy.

I care as I don't want to spend another minute trying to fix issues that can be avoided.

TaoTeJared

The "Scream" that Vipmediastar_JZ (wisely added - and an interesting tale to read and learn about) is a classic story of an amazing image that went viral and quickly became an Icon with little to no fame to the original artist/photographer. There was no way to control it, no real means to collect from it, and could be an amazing opportunity to gain from which he has tried, but unfortunately without the success he probably wishes to be able too. TheStolenScreem

Contrast that with the "revolutionary" Guerrillero Heroico - The classic Che Guevara wearing his black beret taken by Alberto Korda almost 50 years ago. (Total story here) Korda did sell (actually gave) his print to a wealthy revolutionary who distributed the image and then it was used as the cover of Guevara's published diary.

Alberto Korda later expounded that if Feltrinelli had paid him just one lira for each reproduction, that he would have received millions. However, Korda also expressed that he forgave him, because through his actions, the image became famous.

I think the only real lesson to be learned from the two is that there are times for whatever reason an image captures a continuous moment of a feeling that reaches beyond time, race, religion, social status and becomes to embody a human experience that people connect to - an Icon. Once an image becomes this, it is larger than anyone, and no matter how many laws are created, they will never be able to control this type of image. The only justice for the artist, is to be known as the origin of the image.

Even if laws can't properly protect photographers in that realm, lawyers are paid to consider worse case scenarios and protect their clients from litigation. Social media (and really any hosting site) is concerned (rightfully so) to be the one's to be sued for an image going 'Icon" and being held liable for lost income allowing other to "steal" (use without permission) the image. Many have been sued and have lost these battles. Those cases become lessons on where to add language to close the gaps in users agreements. There is no end to it. Every Time you see a new privacy policy, you can be sure some company lost a case because of a gap in the agreement and was found liable. What FB (Flickr, 500px, google, etc) adopts will become the norm and we won't even consider it 3, 5, 10 years from now.

Do the appropriate things of digitally signing your photos, watermark, add a logo, keep a hard digital copy (DVD) of your originals (and edits) and you will cover most bases. If you do professional stock or similar work and your income is dependent on residuals of your work - hire a lawyer to get your ducks in a row. It might cost you $10,000 but if that helps you make 100's of thousands over your lifetime, it is a good investment.

heartyfisher

Can't trust any social networking sites, they sell images for business purposes!

LOL ! so what is the solution?

Ade

One common solution is only to post text / small thumbnails on social media, which all link back to your own blog or website. It solves three problems:

1. Facebook et. al. won't have access to your portfolio
2. It helps with fragmentation: instead of duplicating effort and spreading yourself thin on Facebook, Twitter, G+, etc., you bring your audience back to a single place: your own website
3. You maintain control over your relationship with your audience

bland

There's never been a better way to market ones self than the use of Facebook, and it's FREE!

It's the greatest tool a photographer has ever had in getting work and becoming known.

This year I haven't had to sign one release in order to shoot a concert because the bands have finally figured out having their pictures posted on Facebook by the photographers helps promote them and they still will pay the photographer for the pictures if they want them.

Motorsports is much the same way where the racers and crews enjoy having their pictures posted on Facebook so they can share with their friends and they also want to buy their shots to hang on their walls, and I'm talking big pictures.

I also get many wanting to buy the shots so they can give framed pictures to the racers and owners as a gift. And it's all because of Facebook used properly to advertise the shots.

MikeGunter

Hi,

+1 to PitchBlack, which what what my intent was in my original post. FB's notion is not to tie themselves in court with your rights over any content, ever. They have other fish to fry.

If you don't want to worry about having anything stolen, never post anything. Never let anyone have anything.

Never print or distribute anything.

It goes on and on like that.

Keep your stuff hidden in a closet and locked up.

If that is very clear, it won't get used improperly.

For the most part, that's generally nutsy.

Use EXIF data to copyright the content, don't post high res data, watermark the content, and remember that reputable content users will pay you a fair price and shitty ones won't and life's not fair so either you live under a rock and be unhappy or climb out from under it and be happy and get over it.

My best to all,

Mike

Elvishefer

I was listening to the latest Chase Jarvis Live this morning and something stood out relevant to this conversation.

Either he or his guest quoted Corey Doctorow as saying something like "Today an artist's problem isn't piracy, it's obscurity."

Which led me to think that I shouldn't worry so much about people or services using my image, but people or services using my images without providing a direct link to ME.

Another interesting quote from the discussion was that "when you steal from one person it's plagiarism, when you steal from many it's research".

It was worth a listen/watch. Guest was Austin Kleon, a writer. It runs long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4byZp9PvAs

Ade

@Elvishefer

Yup you are right on, actually it was Chase Jarvis who was in my mind when I wrote my first reply above:

Personally, I'd rather have people steal my pictures, view them, enjoy them -- than having them hidden in obscurity. I should make a habit of posting more of them, the good ones and the bad ones.

I haven't posted to my public Facebook page since June... I need to get motivated again.

dissent

and elsewhere in the news -

http://petapixel.com/2013/09/18/president-chechnya-steals-photo/

mikep

the piracy Vs obscurity comment is very relevant, but they go hand in hand too, in that the more popular a picture is the more likely it is to be used somewhere

if someone were to steal and use for business purposes id want payment, but for any other purpose i dont care really

for me, the idea of trying to protect a digital images in a digital world of billions of other images where one click and copies can be made ..... it just seems a little crazy

i think focusing on building your business will be much more productive than spending time protecting images from theft. like, a shop needs to focus on selling rather than protecting itself from a few thieves who might steal the bacon once a week. priorities.

heartyfisher

I think it depend on the type of photographer you are. if you take weeks / months to craft an image then its quite different from a wedding photographer who sells his skill at producing dozens of image in 1 weekend.

Msmoto

I recently posted a shot on Flickr which went over 12,000 views in a few days. I suspect at least someone grabbed the image at 2000 pixels and printed it. However, the issue at my age is....so what. I suspect if it were used commercially I might get upset, but the Exif data would be clear it was mine.

Golf007sd

+1 Elvishefer