[twopoint718]

Yuck. I had heard previously about how difficult it is to completely remove yourself from FB, but this getting unreasonable.

Also I have an issue with the article:

> Someone can still take your photo, slap it on Facebook, and now neither you nor the author of the photo can stop Facebook from using the photo in whichever way they please.

I doubt that that's the case. If someone takes something to which I have a copyright and then places it on Facebook without my approval, I would think I have legal recourse. Isn't this what a DMCA takedown notice is for? Unless I'm misreading that quote.

[electromagnetic]

No you're absolutely correct. If someone takes your photo (I read about this for a childrens entertainer and someone duped her account) facebook will disable the persons account and likely depending on the situation may take extra steps (I believe in the case I'm thinking of, Facebook gave a list of the IP's and times the user had accessed the duplicate account from to the police in case they believed it was potentially criminal due to the nature of the womans job and the likely hood of the dupe being made by a pedophile).

Facebooks ToS explicitly state that they respect the IP rights of others and that they will remove any infringing content, or for repeat offenders their account will permanently be suspended (presumably their email will be banned too). It also says they do everything in accordance with the DMCA. The one thing people don't understand about the DMCA is that whilst it might be evil, it also protects individuals as much as companies because every single photo, sentence or anything you or I make or write are immediately copy protected in all western countries.

[gdee]

>> It also says they do everything in accordance with the DMCA. The one thing people don't understand about the DMCA is that whilst it might be evil, it also protects individuals as much as companies because every single photo, sentence or anything you or I make or write are immediately copy protected in all western countries.

1. Warning: Wrong conflation detected. DMCA != copyright

2. Warning: Wrong conflation detected. copyright != "copy protected" (copyleft = copyright, copyleft = "copy invited")

3. DMCA is neither universal nor universal to western countries. It's actually no universal to anything. Just an internal USA law.

[eru]

If I shoot a photo of you, it's not in your copyright (as far as I know).

[mechanical_fish]

If you photograph someone, they don't have copyright in the photograph. [1] But if some copyrighted thing appears in the photograph, the holder of that copyright might have legal rights.

Moreover, the subjects of photos can sue you for invasion of privacy -- or, depending on how you use the image, slander. Property owners can sue you for trespassing. And, in some parts of some countries, there is a "right of publicity":

http://www.publaw.com/rightpriv.html

... which prevents you from (e.g.) taking a photo of a well-known person, Photoshopping your product into their hands, and using the result for commercial purposes.

The end result is that professional photographers, videographers, and filmmakers try to get signed release forms from every recognizable person who appears in a shot that is to be used for a commercial purpose. [2] The documented existence of those release forms is a major reason why stock photos cost more than your brother's photographs of random pedestrians on the street.

---

[1] Have I mentioned in this thread that I'm not a lawyer? I'm not a lawyer.

[2] http://www.videomaker.com/article/809/