Facebook pictures and copyright

[55palfers]

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Regarding this thread.

It seems The Daily Mail (and others) have lifted the silly mother's Facebook pages and plastered them all over the media.

I have no idea how Facebook copyright works, but if the pictures are presumably the "private" property of the family, then surely folk can't just cut and paste them into the papers. More so if the usage is "for profit"??

Yes / no? Any ideas please?

Or is it just - don't go on Facebook.

[Retroman]

Another good reason to ensure privacy settings for your Facebook account are all up to date & as you want them.

[GrumpyTwig]

If you put pictures on facebook that are publicly accessible you deserve all you get, not enough parents are savvy to social media security these days.

[TooMany2cvs]

Since when did the Wail et al give a toss about copyright? They're notorious for just using pics etc without permission.

[JustinP1]

55palfers said:

Any ideas please?

Simple. She just invoices the Daily Mail for the usage. She's clearly got access to an invoice template. If she kept the fee at £15.95 then she'd just have to change the payee details.

[eatcustard]

Of all they years I have used facebook, you will not find a single pic of me on it.

I mug far to scary to show

[ecs]

Facebook T&Cs state that once a photo is uploaded to their website, it remains their property. Doesn't matter on the security settings.

[marshalla]

ecs said:

Facebook T&Cs state that once a photo is uploaded to their website, it remains their property. Doesn't matter on the security settings.

No, it doesn't.

https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

[allergictocheese]

marshalla said:

No, it doesn't.

https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

The link you share tends to suggest you grant Facebook license to use your pictures and distribute them how it wants, subject to your privacy settings. If they're 'public', it reads as if they're entitled to offer them to whoever they like, such as the Daily Mail.

[marshalla]

allergictocheese said:

The link you share tends to suggest you grant Facebook license to use your pictures and distribute them how it wants, subject to your privacy settings. If they're 'public', it reads as if they're entitled to offer them to whoever they like, such as the Daily Mail.

Correct, but FB do not own the pictures, they just have a licence to do whatever they want with them until you remove them.

[Corpulent Tosser]

Post no pictures or comments on ANY social network sites that you would not be happy with being public anywhere.

[Gareth79]

Section 30 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows use in news reporting:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/sectio...

I don't think they legally needed to pixelate out the childrens' faces, but it's probably part of an industry code of conduct.

[chriscoates]

Gareth79 said:

Section 30 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows use in news reporting:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/sectio...

I don't think they legally needed to pixelate out the childrens' faces, but it's probably part of an industry code of conduct.

Correct - the Editor's Code advises that anyone under 18 shouldn't be identified unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Also, I could be wrong but I didn't think fair dealing applied to photographs? The main problem is people don't know what their rights are so the media just chance it and usually get away with it.

[allergictocheese]

Gareth79 said:

Section 30 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows use in news reporting:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/sectio...

I don't think they legally needed to pixelate out the childrens' faces, but it's probably part of an industry code of conduct.

You have misread the act. The section you quote specifically excludes photographs for news reporting.