|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Facebook photo tagging question
|
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-20-2011 07:45 AM
Yes, putting anything on the internet is the equivalent to standing on your rooftop and shouting to the world.
However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't do it.
Could the posting of these photos be good advertising for you?
If so, you could use a little Jujitsu on your client.
1) You can watermark and/or "Digimarc" the photos. ( https://www.digimarc.com/ )
2) You could allow the photos to be posted on condition that they allow you to use the images for advertising purposes.
3) You could also require any photo that's posted on the internet, whether by you or by somebody else, to be accompanied by a link back to your website.
4) All of the above.
By specifying conditions like this, if the other person disobeys, you now have reason to legally nail them to the wall.
I'm not saying that you should allow the photos to be posted but, if you do, this is something to think about.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 04-20-2011 03:35 PM
For professional and hobbyist photographers, Facebook does little to protect the rights of the images posted there. At least Flickr provides some attribution of copyright, but on Facebook, the images are there for all to see and to take and use as they see fit.
The only saving grace is the relatively low resolution of Facebook images, but that doesn't seem to stop people who can't appreciate how artifacted such a small image is when printed on paper at any usable size.
If it were me, I would post the photos with clear copyright and usage text at the bottom of every image. I don't think there's anything wrong with doing that from the viewer's standpoint, and it provides you with the ability to declare your rights and usage terms, as well as a little advertising as well.
People can still crop that out, but they at least would have to perform a deliberate act to do so, and most people would be unwilling to expend even that little bit of effort.
For additional protection, you could place a visible watermark across the image, but doing so would obstruct the view of the image and perhaps be detrimental to the enjoyment of the photos. It's a balancing act between protecting your work, and making it enjoyable to view.
Here's an example of such actions that I quickly created to illustrate (sized to the Facebook-friendly 720 width):
Which of these, if any, are acceptable is completely up to you and your intentions for the photos. In your case, I might find a few interesting shots, put some copyright/ad text at the bottom, maybe a subtle logo somewhere on the image, and in the caption/comments, put in a URL that leads people to where they could buy prints or digital copies if they are interested in doing so.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 04-22-2011 10:44 AM
quote: Joe Redifer
Yeesh! If you're going to do that to an image, don't even bother uploading it because it really sucks all of the enjoyment out of it. Just keep your pictures to yourself and never show anyone ever. It's the only way to be sure.
That's basically the point I was making with the image. You can take measures to protect the content, but if you go too far, you suck the enjoyment right out of it and it defeats the whole purpose of posting it in the first place.
The tricky thing with Facebook (and other sites, like Flickr), is that the user community has certain expectations. Steps that can be taken to protect an image or to leverage some commercial benefit from posting it can be taken as offensive by the community, and you would have been better off never bothering in the first place. It's a balancing act, to be sure.
I think most people either don't know or don't care how much of their lives (and their livelihoods) they are giving away to so-called social media companies. They gladly give away their privacy by providing way too many details, and way too much information about themselves, and in most cases, they get nothing significant in regards to protections, service guarantees, or anything else, in return.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic