![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
janestarzJust a gentle reminder on how to use my pictures.
Copyright
"Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by the law of a jurisdiction to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work." (From: Wikipedia)
Or, in Dutch:
Auteursrecht (ook bekend als copyright) is het recht van de maker of een eventuele rechtverkrijgende van een werk van literatuur, wetenschap of kunst om te bepalen hoe, waar en wanneer zijn werk wordt openbaar gemaakt of verveelvoudigd. Het auteursrecht ontstaat van rechtswege. Men hoeft niets te deponeren of te registreren. (From: Wikipedia)
That means: If I take a picture, create an artwork or write a book, I am the one who gets to decide who can copy and distribute the work. I made it, so I've got copyright. I can file a lawsuit against anyone who decides they don't have to take care with my work. And win it.
Portrait Rights
In the Netherlands, we also know a law on protecting one's portrait. It allows a person depicted in a portrait or picture to object to publishing the image.
"Het portretrecht is een beperking van het auteursrecht. Het geeft geportretteerde personen het recht zich te verzetten tegen publicatie van hun portret." (From: Wikipedia)
As a photographer, you can also choose to waive (a part) of these rights. I like Open Source and Creative Commons, so I usually give all my photo's a Creative Commons license. An Attribution, Non-commercial, no-derivatives license to be exact.
That means: you are free to share the work, as long as you don't alter it in any way and tell people I was the one who made it. Unless you want to use it commercially, because Commercial use is not allowed.
I find that most larpers I photograph are not so worried about having their pictures taken and shared. It's a comfortable position to be in as a photographer as well. People trust you to take pictures and shift through them so the best are published and the blurry worst aren't. They trust you to take care with the images so they can't be used for other means.
And this one of the reasons I dislike Photobucket and like Flickr.
Photobucket takes your images and takes your rights:
"By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content marked "private" will not be distributed outside the Photobucket Services." (From: The Photobucket Terms of Use, emphasis mine)
Flickr allows you to choose what kind of license your images will have. The default setting is "all rights reserved".
The reason I'm blogging about this? It's because I'm pissed off. I'm pissed off at Facebook and I'm pissed off at Photobucket and all those other sites who think that portraits and photographs are theirs just because their Terms of Use tell you they are. You see, Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilites" tells me this:
"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
1. 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." (emphasis mine)
And I read on Slashdot today that Facebook now has the means to add any of your profile pictures to adds on other people's profiles. It's linked to Facebook Places, and if you 'check in' to your local Starbucks, Facebook will display a Starbuck's add with your profile photo on your friend's Facebook pages. "Hey look!" they will say, "Your friend likes us too!"
(Original article on Slashdot, here)
And I know for a fact that some people use my photographs in their Facebook.
And they can't.
'They can't?' you might ask me? That's right. They can't. Not because I am stopping them! I've got Creative Commons License on my images.
If I've taken a picture of you, you have a right to that portrait, because it's your face on it - That's Portrait right. But by uploading it to Facebook, you say to Facebook that it's YOUR image. That YOU own it. And you don't.
But because you've uploaded it to Facebook, you've just given away your rights to the image, and mine, because of their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. But you can't give my rights away, because they're not yours to give away in the first place!
It would be like me uploading your book's contents to Facebook and Facebook selling your book, because I've uploaded it. Or me uploading your artwork to Facebook and Facebook selling it to a museum. Facebook can do anything it bloody well wants with the image, because you've just handed it to them.
And that's my image! I took that photo! I spend a thousand euro's on that bloody camera! I kneeled in the dirt for that picture! Can you see how this pisses me off?!
*breathes deeply*
Alright, there's no use ranting about this. Facebook is, as a social experiment, interesting to observe from the side lines, and there's not a lot I can do to change it.
What I can and will do is the following:
1) Ask anyone who is using photographs of mine on their Facebook, to please take it down.
2) Add a watermark to all of my images I publish in the future.
Please, people. This is a big deal. It is not a "why do you worry about this" subject. It's your face they are using for their profit. They are trampling your rights, and you won't see a dime in return.
Please take down any of my images you've got on Facebook. If you do, I'll get you a print of that image to hang on your wall in your home instead as a thank you.
Just e-mail me at starz [a] janestarz [.] com if you want a print.
Copyright
"Copyright is a set of exclusive rights granted by the law of a jurisdiction to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work." (From: Wikipedia)
Or, in Dutch:
Auteursrecht (ook bekend als copyright) is het recht van de maker of een eventuele rechtverkrijgende van een werk van literatuur, wetenschap of kunst om te bepalen hoe, waar en wanneer zijn werk wordt openbaar gemaakt of verveelvoudigd. Het auteursrecht ontstaat van rechtswege. Men hoeft niets te deponeren of te registreren. (From: Wikipedia)
That means: If I take a picture, create an artwork or write a book, I am the one who gets to decide who can copy and distribute the work. I made it, so I've got copyright. I can file a lawsuit against anyone who decides they don't have to take care with my work. And win it.
Portrait Rights
In the Netherlands, we also know a law on protecting one's portrait. It allows a person depicted in a portrait or picture to object to publishing the image.
"Het portretrecht is een beperking van het auteursrecht. Het geeft geportretteerde personen het recht zich te verzetten tegen publicatie van hun portret." (From: Wikipedia)
As a photographer, you can also choose to waive (a part) of these rights. I like Open Source and Creative Commons, so I usually give all my photo's a Creative Commons license. An Attribution, Non-commercial, no-derivatives license to be exact.
That means: you are free to share the work, as long as you don't alter it in any way and tell people I was the one who made it. Unless you want to use it commercially, because Commercial use is not allowed.
I find that most larpers I photograph are not so worried about having their pictures taken and shared. It's a comfortable position to be in as a photographer as well. People trust you to take pictures and shift through them so the best are published and the blurry worst aren't. They trust you to take care with the images so they can't be used for other means.
And this one of the reasons I dislike Photobucket and like Flickr.
Photobucket takes your images and takes your rights:
"By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content marked "private" will not be distributed outside the Photobucket Services." (From: The Photobucket Terms of Use, emphasis mine)
Flickr allows you to choose what kind of license your images will have. The default setting is "all rights reserved".
The reason I'm blogging about this? It's because I'm pissed off. I'm pissed off at Facebook and I'm pissed off at Photobucket and all those other sites who think that portraits and photographs are theirs just because their Terms of Use tell you they are. You see, Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilites" tells me this:
"You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
1. 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." (emphasis mine)
And I read on Slashdot today that Facebook now has the means to add any of your profile pictures to adds on other people's profiles. It's linked to Facebook Places, and if you 'check in' to your local Starbucks, Facebook will display a Starbuck's add with your profile photo on your friend's Facebook pages. "Hey look!" they will say, "Your friend likes us too!"
(Original article on Slashdot, here)
And I know for a fact that some people use my photographs in their Facebook.
And they can't.
'They can't?' you might ask me? That's right. They can't. Not because I am stopping them! I've got Creative Commons License on my images.
If I've taken a picture of you, you have a right to that portrait, because it's your face on it - That's Portrait right. But by uploading it to Facebook, you say to Facebook that it's YOUR image. That YOU own it. And you don't.
But because you've uploaded it to Facebook, you've just given away your rights to the image, and mine, because of their Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. But you can't give my rights away, because they're not yours to give away in the first place!
It would be like me uploading your book's contents to Facebook and Facebook selling your book, because I've uploaded it. Or me uploading your artwork to Facebook and Facebook selling it to a museum. Facebook can do anything it bloody well wants with the image, because you've just handed it to them.
And that's my image! I took that photo! I spend a thousand euro's on that bloody camera! I kneeled in the dirt for that picture! Can you see how this pisses me off?!
*breathes deeply*
Alright, there's no use ranting about this. Facebook is, as a social experiment, interesting to observe from the side lines, and there's not a lot I can do to change it.
What I can and will do is the following:
1) Ask anyone who is using photographs of mine on their Facebook, to please take it down.
2) Add a watermark to all of my images I publish in the future.
Please, people. This is a big deal. It is not a "why do you worry about this" subject. It's your face they are using for their profit. They are trampling your rights, and you won't see a dime in return.
Please take down any of my images you've got on Facebook. If you do, I'll get you a print of that image to hang on your wall in your home instead as a thank you.
Just e-mail me at starz [a] janestarz [.] com if you want a print.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 09:47 am (UTC)Fact is, there is no obligation; though technically the rightsholder can sue, it probably won't happen. Careless people and companies will take your text/photos/artwork and use it as they see fit, if they can. But friends listen to each other's requests and respect their wishes.
I have no more of Janestarz' photos on my facebook, because it would be like nabbing her blog posts and saying they're mine. And if I ever write something about you you're unhappy about, please just let me know.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 09:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 09:57 am (UTC)Hmmmm, I will start to consider using Flickr instead of Photobucket.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 10:14 am (UTC)I'm curious: did you delete the Aon photos from Photobucket because of their terms of use? Or just because I blogged?
Flickr has free accounts as well as Pro accounts, and each has their own limits and preferences. It's described in more detail here (http://www.flickr.com/help/limits/).
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 08:06 pm (UTC)I know your personality a bit, and I assume you don't get angry about this for no reason. So, I deleted them after reading your blog. And I agree with you on this issue.
I would not want someone to profit from the photo's I took the effort to make without letting me have any of that profit or without me giving that person consent.
Can you tell me more about Flickr? Am seriously considering switching over...
no subject
Date: 2011-01-27 09:20 am (UTC)Flickr allows you to store your images, easily share them by providing an HTML and BBcode (for PHPbb forums), a plugin to blogs and even Facebook (boo, hiss). You can add tags to your pictures for easy referencing, organise your pictures into sets and collections and even create galleries of other people's images you enjoy.
Then there's Flickr groups, where you can collaborate with other photographers.
You can always create a free account to see if you like how Flickr works.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 10:31 am (UTC)I do it as well, every now and then, as you know.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 11:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 11:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 11:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 11:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:22 pm (UTC)However, I will not so far to explicitly forbid people from doing the same with photos I took. If I forbid people from uploading (the low rez and watermarked) photos to facebook people (esp. models) will get angry at me.
Reason is simple: though you are correct in the above writing the murky depths of copyright rules are beyond the average users willingness to understand. Instead, people will just see me as the boogeyman/culprit/"anoying photographer who takes images of me but then doesn't allow me to show them to people, wtf is up with that dude?". That's bad for business, even though it's my right.
Besides this there is still a large gap between "rights one (claims) to have" (the legaleese) and "things that actually happen" (what you see). When people upload my pictures and they pop up everywhere (preferably with watermark) other people will recognize them which, for me, is good for business.
I therefore have chosen to accept that people will upload my images to various social media sites, including facebook, knowing that in doing so facebook will make an claim for copyright of dubious legality, which if I ever went after it would probably dupe the user who uploaded them (however, no worries users, I won't sue you for that. :P)
I however do try to explain/educate/push people into only uploading the small/watermarked versions to the web (I provide both after a shoot), and not the original versions. This means that 1) facebook will not have illegal claims to copyright of the original, 2) by having the original I can always provide proof that yes, I am the copyright holder, and 3) because the smaller versions are actually optimized for web viewing and look much sharper! (there is still a lot of difference between resizing algorithms used, and facebook isn't using the best one out there, but rather a fast one, and post-resize sharpening makes images look better!)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:03 pm (UTC)- that the terms of use can screw you over
- that their faces can appear anywhere over the internet
- that privacy is a concern, and that you should probably read up on it every once in a while
- and that photographers can be duped without your intentionally trying to dupe them.
It will probably make me a bogey-man, yes. But then, I do not want to become a professional photographer, so it is alright if people don't want to have their pictures taken by me.
I will make sure that in future shoots I will tell people I would prefer it if they didn't post the photos I make on Facebook or Photobucket. They will know upfront that they have rights, and I'll happily tell them why I hold this opinion.
A watermark will happily cover all the other cases, get my name out there, and still allow people to use the images elsewhere (personal websites, livejournal etc.)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 04:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:24 pm (UTC)Can you tell me if this userpicture is originaly a picture you made?
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:56 pm (UTC)I'm having loads of troubles with your MSN thingy though ;-) It keeps popping up telling me you've added me... it might stop if we actually spoke to eachother on MSN and both ends would know we know eachother =)
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:10 pm (UTC)I always online during working hours, but only in rare occasions in my spare time.
But is tomorrow evening a idea?
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 05:00 pm (UTC)I'm very curious about the Portretten rechtsand how it applies to figure models. Does this mean that as the model I should have signed releases for all the images of me that artists sold/gave to the Rijksmuseum, or should there have been royalties? What do I do when I see a painting of me hanging in a cafe'?
no subject
Date: 2011-01-27 07:49 am (UTC)When you're modeling, be it for an artist or a photographer, it is 'normal' that you sign a modeling contract, which explains exactly what rights you have and what the artist can do with your image. If you haven't got a modeling contract, there might be options, but a lawyer can answer these questions better than I can.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 10:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-27 07:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-01-27 08:56 am (UTC)Groetjes Margriet
no subject
Date: 2011-01-27 09:17 am (UTC)Als je foto's van mijn gezicht op Facebook hebt staan, heb ik ook graag dat je ze verwijdert, want die horen daar sowieso niet thuis, maar ik verwacht niet dat je dat hebt =D
Overigens zijn Flickr, Livejournal en Scrapbook en persoonlijke websites (met vermelding van mijn naam onder de foto) geen probleem. Livejournal en Scrapbook hebben prima copyright policies en Flickr gaat heel netjes met onze rechten om.