Social media photos, legality of use in tabloids, etc

nxbyveromdwjpg

I was wondering this the other day, we've probably all seen it (the balcony incident springs to mind) where the papers, usually the tabloids, will scour the internet for photos of the people in their story whether they be a victim or an accused or any person of interest will then just publish the photos as part of the article (even the cover in some cases) as if they are their own.

I've been googling but I can't find anything definitive, it seems to me like there would be an obvious copyright issue here.

Facebook's terms of service do allow them use of the photos a user uploads, but say nothing of a third party. The person who uploaded retains the copyright.

Where is the law on this?

VisibleGorilla

Anything you upload to Facebook effectively becomes their property.

Anything you put on the internet is pretty much open to anyone.

meathstevie

Not completely up to date on the legal in's and out's but don't be surprised that when you throw something in the public domain it will be put to public use.

It's a bit like walking down the street, if you don't want to be seen you'll have to stay in.

nxbyveromdwjpg

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Anything you upload to Facebook effectively becomes their property.

Anything you put on the internet is pretty much open to anyone.

Well that's most definitely incorrect.

Even if it was correct, it's being Facebook's property would not entitle tabloid print media to use it without their consent.

?Cee?view

Keith Great Truth wrote: »

Well that's most definitely incorrect.

Even if it was correct, it's being Facebook's property would not entitle tabloid print media to use it without their consent.

From Facebook Ts & Cs:

"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."

So, depending on how you've set your privacy and application settings, you've pretty much given Facebook carte blanche to use images.

VisibleGorilla

Keith Great Truth wrote: »

Well that's most definitely incorrect.

Even if it was correct, it's being Facebook's property would not entitle tabloid print media to use it without their consent.

This is why people are very naive when it comes to social media.

Why do you think you don't have to pay? You're paying alright, just not with money.

Any image you upload to Facebook becomes their property to use however they like.

nxbyveromdwjpg

?Cee?view wrote: »

From Facebook Ts & Cs:

"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."

So, depending on how you've set your privacy and application settings, you've pretty much given Facebook carte blanche to use images.

I'm not talking about Facebook using the images, I'm fully aware that they are able to use them should they so wish (the uploader retains copyright btw).

I'm referring to tabloids using the photos which they have obviously scoured via google images or the like on the day of a story breaking.

Unless they have advance permission from Facebook or whichever social media platform the photo has been hosted on, how is there not a copyright issue at play here?

That's my question really. I suspect they have permission from no one, and assume fair use but I'm looking for legal clarity.

?Cee?view

Keith Great Truth wrote: »

I'm not talking about Facebook using the images, I'm fully aware that they are able to use them should they so wish (the uploader retains copyright btw).

I'm referring to tabloids using the photos which they have obviously scoured via google images or the like on the day of a story breaking.

Unless they have advance permission from Facebook or whichever social media platform the photo has been hosted on, how is there not a copyright issue at play here?

That's my question really. I suspect they have permission from no one, and assume fair use but I'm looking for legal clarity.

Fair point, but probably theoretical really. If you've already devalued your own IP by allowing what is effectively a free unlimited licence to its use, it's then difficult to turn around and claim that that thing which has been devalued by being given away is actually something of value which needs to be protected. While you could probably assert ownership, having already licensed it on such terms may have rendered it worthless.

Graham

?Cee?view wrote: »

Fair point, but probably theoretical really. If you've already devalued your own IP by allowing what is effectively a free unlimited licence to its use, it's then difficult to turn around and claim that that thing which has been devalued by being given away is actually something of value which needs to be protected. While you could probably assert ownership, having already licensed it on such terms may have rendered it worthless.

Does any of that opinion have a legal basis?

Denzel Washingline

The creator of the photograph retains copyright in the image even after it is posted to social media. There is no need to take any special measures to secure the copyright; the very act of capturing the image is sufficient. Exhibiting the image in the public domain does not diminish the copyright protection although it may impact upon any right to privacy attaching to it.

The media may be able to establish a 'fair dealing' right to use of a picture depending on the news value of the image in question. However, there is no general right to harvest images posted online and use them for whatever purpose you like. Media outlets are successfully pursued on a regular basis for misappropriating content in this fashion. Chapter 6 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act, 2000 outlines the circumstances in which copyrighted material can be used on a 'fair dealing' basis.

Victor

Potentially, the image rights holder could demand payment for the photos.

Keith Great Truth wrote: »

The person who uploaded retains the copyright.

Photographic copyright usually rests with the person who took the photo, although the rights can be sold-on or licenced.

VisibleGorilla wrote: »

Anything you upload to Facebook effectively becomes their property.

No, they get a licence to use it. It isn't theirs.

Anything you put on the internet is pretty much open to anyone.

So you're cool with me taking your car if you leave it on the public road? There is a difference between what is permitted and what people do.

Johnboy1951

Facebook are licenced to do what they wish with the photo, without payment.

As was previously mentioned, this must surely devalue (monetarily) any 'compensation' the copyright holder might expect to get from someone else who reproduced the photo without licence.

So what has a tabloid to fear by using such a photo without licence from the copyright holder?

Graham

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Facebook are licenced to do what they wish with the photo, without payment.

As was previously mentioned, this must surely devalue (monetarily) any 'compensation' the copyright holder might expect to get from someone else who reproduced the photo without licence.

So what has a tabloid to fear by using such a photo without licence from the copyright holder?

Legally speaking, how would a licensing agreement with 1 party have any bearing on the unlicensed use by another?

Johnboy1951

Graham wrote: »

Legally speaking, how would a licensing agreement with 1 party have any bearing on the unlicensed use by another?

Valuation?

I certainly would not care to try to argue for high compensation from a second party, for a photo I effectively licensed to one party for zero euros.

Without the high compensation award what would be the point in challenging the use?