Who owns your photos once they're online?

[Holdfast]

Just wondering, 'cos I came across one of my pics (of me, though not in a personally identifiable way) being used to illustrate a blog article (the parent company of the blog is a medium sized profit-making organisation). The original pic was taken by me, in private, but uploaded to a publicly accessible forum.

The use of the pic is in a mildly flattering context, so I'm not irritated, but it got me wondering - do I have any ownership/financial rights or are they lost as soon as a photo is uploaded to a public forum (in other words, do they become public domain and/or usable under fair use)?

I saved the web page, just in case.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

This reminds me off that story about a couple from America who went on holiday to the Czech Republic only to find a supermarket was using one of their family pictures on the wall outside their shop and inside as an advertisement.
After the couple complained the supermarket took down the pics and said a mistake was made.

 

[JustKate]

My understanding is that they still belong to you, so long as you are identified as the owner on the original forum, and therefore people should not use them without permission.

Then again, they shouldn't use excerpts from humor columns without attributing them or attributing them to someone else, and yet they do.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Holdfast, You should not alert them to the fact they are using your picture and instead go see a solicitor and see if you can sue them for some money.

I know I would.

 

[CorporalClegg]

So where's the pic?

 

[Holdfast]

This reminds me off that story about a couple from America who went on holiday to the Czech Republic only to find a supermarket was using one of their family pictures on the wall outside their shop and inside as an advertisement.
After the couple complained the supermarket took down the pics and said a mistake was made.

Yeah, I saw that story.

My understanding is that they still belong to you, so long as you are identified as the owner on the original forum...

I am.

Holdfast, You should not alert them to the fact they are using your picture and instead go see a solicitor and see if you can sue them for some money.

I know I would.

It crossed my mind, but frankly I doubt I'd get much beyond an apology, a removal of my picture, legal fees, and maybe a hundred bucks or so as compensation. Hardly worth the hassle.

It just made me realise that I have no idea what the law actually says about this.

 

[JustKate]

I don't think the law on ownership has changed with the advent of the Internet. I think enforcing it has become more complicated, but...the law is the same, as far as I know. A photograph is still considered an "original work," even though it's posted somewhere.

 

[JustKate]

I should add that there is a caveat, and that is what is known as "fair use." This doesn't sound as though it applies, but heck, I could be wrong.

 

[Mr. B]

It depends on where you upload it. If it's your own site you own it... as opposed to say Facebook where they basically own it. On Flickr you retain copyright of your photos unless they are tagged with some sort of Creative Commons license.

This sort of thing has definitely come up before: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sesh00/515961023/

 

[ManOnTheWave]

My understanding is that they still belong to you, so long as you are identified as the owner on the original forum, and therefore people should not use them without permission.

Usually. Though if you upload something to Facebook, for example, they take the position that they own whatever you upload. People are of course trying to fight it.

 

[Laren]

A while ago I read somewhere that some guy used a photograph of Heidi Klum to advertise a party. Upon finding out her management promplty sent him a bill which amounted to several thousand Euros- her usual rate. They even went to court, IIRC.
Just because you publish a photo doesn't mean you lose the rights to it.

 

[Jadzia]

Each forum/hosting system are entitled to their own terms and conditions regarding giving up ownership of content, or not. But in the absence of relevant details you would retain copyright by default.

If your image was hosted on imageshack for instance, you are explicitly reminded of your copyright:

All files are © to their respective owners. ImageShack® directs full legal responsibility of files to their respective users. All other content © ImageShack®. ImageShack® is not responsible for the content any uploaded files, nor is it in affiliation with any entities that may be represented in the uploaded files.

*

I don't think the law on ownership has changed with the advent of the Internet. I think enforcing it has become more complicated, but...the law is the same, as far as I know. A photograph is still considered an "original work," even though it's posted somewhere.

In law, putting something on the internet is considered 'publishing'. This is why making false allegations about somebody online are as libelous as if those same words are printed in a newspaper.

Putting a picture on line is analogous to getting a picture book published.

 

[JustKate]

^ That is exactly my impression as well - I was hedging just...well, just because we're talking legality here.

Edit: I mean, I work (managing editor) for a membership magazine, and we put it online, and we would definitely not sit idly by if someone used our photos without permission, nor would I if someone used a photo from our website.

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

I'm not an expert, but as far as I know the rights belong to you. If you upload it somewhere with a license to use it free of rights, then you give that right away. If you do not, the magazine is supposed to pay you license fees.

 

[Squiggy]

Holdfast, You should not alert them to the fact they are using your picture and instead go see a solicitor and see if you can sue them for some money.

I know I would.

And you'd loose.

When you upload them and don't specifically say "don't use this for yada yada" or post them to any publicly accessible fora they become public domain.

 

[Holdfast]

Each forum/hosting system are entitled to their own terms and conditions regarding giving up ownership of content, or not. But in the absence of relevant details you would retain copyright by default.

If your image was hosted on imageshack for instance, you are explicitly reminded of your copyright

The original was indeed hosted on ImageShack.

I don't think the law on ownership has changed with the advent of the Internet. I think enforcing it has become more complicated, but...the law is the same, as far as I know. A photograph is still considered an "original work," even though it's posted somewhere.

In law, putting something on the internet is considered 'publishing'. This is why making false allegations about somebody online are as libelous as if those same words are printed in a newspaper.

Putting a picture on line is analogous to getting a picture book published.

Useful info, thanks!



OK, since I'm not likely to take this further since no real harm has been caused and I'm not identified on this pic, you might be amused to know what the article is:

"Even the elite of the elite have worries..."

(my pic was probably used because I happen to be wearing Brioni in the pic, and I guess the colours were striking)

 

[trampledamage]

That must be so weird though, happily reading articles and suddenly, "hang on a mo, that tie looks familiar!"

 

[CorporalClegg]

It had to be the suit...

 

[Trippy]

I know I shouldn't laugh, because it could have been your face posted too, but that's a great pic and the article is just so perfect for that tie

 

[DiSiLLUSiON]

They didn't even properly resize the image...