I started a Facebook page for Joseph Rossbach Photography a few months ago. I only recently started actively using it and am finding it to be quite a bit of fun.
If you are interested in becoming a fan, then click the link below. I would love to see everyone online and discuss all the great photo ops we have here in the Mid Atlantic and Southeast US.
Have you looked closely at the terms and conditions for putting photos on FB? Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but I've pulled all my photos off and almost never go there any more.
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 17, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Likewise, I won't post photos on Facebook because of their policies, terms & conditions regarding photos posted there. They also make it very difficult to opt out on those policies.
Posted by Jim Salge on October 17, 2009 at 10:03 AM
I've recently started a page too...and agree with you Joe, it's great for building connections and fostering interest in your craft. I've been using it as a blog as well, which has proven convenient, and a way to keep my content dynamic. It links back to my 'real' photography website as well.
As for copyright terms...I make sure to use the same sense I use when posting to other sites...small files, watermarked, etc. It's something to weigh, but I find the benefits more valuable than the prospect of them using one of my low rez images in connection with Facebook. Why...I'm hoping local buyers will find the site, and follow it...and I can use it as part of my business strategy. However, I'm in a different place in my career than many others on this site.
Terms: From Facebook:
Sharing Your Content and Information
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:
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.
"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")"
That doesn't come within two solar systems and a whole law firm of our business model.
Reminds me of a good friend in the final stages of negotiations for a mega-dollar photo license, when the client found another version of the same scene my friend had listed on one of the royalty free sites. He made $1 on his RF sale, but at the cost of a nearly $20,000 photo license.
Not coincidentally Face Book has the same initials as Funny Bone. Right up there with a pie in the face.
If Farce Book wants to use photos, they can pay for them just as any ethical business would be expected to do.
That sounded more flippant (but no less harsh) than I had intended. Let me be a little more constructive. If terms like these were included in FaceBook, it would be an ideal complement to your business model, I think:
"All content, including photography and text on this site is copyright the respective photographers/authors. Any use or reproduction of the content without the written permission of the photographer and/or author is strictly forbidden. Please read our Terms of Use before using this site."
Pretty darned straight forward while protecting the photographer well, don't you think?
Where did it come from?
Right here at NPN. If those conditions didn't exist for the site, I doubt any serious photographers, much less pro photographers, would ever post photos here.
You have to ask yourself why Facebook DOES NOT have anything like that for photos. Hmmmm......
Mmmmmm. Try this on a business model. Start a list of folks that buy from you after facebook contact. Start another list of people that buy from you after finding you in other ways. See which fills faster.
It's a business, so think about the business side. If you like facebook and twitter and such things, have a ball. But track your contacts resulting in sales and see whether it's an entertaining hobby or part of a successful business model.
No dispute here, just a suggested way to evaluate your business strategy. Let us know if it works, but don't count on me to post even 25 pixel photos on facebook. I refuse to endorse any company with that kind of photo policy. Can't you just see other companies starting to do the same thing with the argument that "Facebook does it, and you have your photos on facebook." Nah. Label me a curmudgeon. But one with a successful business and healthy accounts.
Hank, I'll have to disagree. I have about 600 people following me on Facebook. Many of them come into my gallery, make purchases on my website and think about me first when looking to buy art either for themselves or for gifts. I only started using social networking this past spring and I'm already seeing a difference. It is a tool which can be quite helpful if you know how to use it.
Thanks guys! Not a concern for me. 600 pixel files won't be able to be used for much. In fact a lot of fans on my Facebook page are driven to my workshops and classes which brings in far more money than commercial/editorial sales do these days anyway!
while I see, that this should be an entire discussion thread on its own, I just add I'm mostly behind Hank on this. but, yes, if you feel you'll make the income from classes and workshops FB is probably useful. other than that, I believe it's good for amateurs or whover just enjoys the fun (and has the time...) without much desire (and need) to think any further.
georg
Posted by Thomas Biggs on October 18, 2009 at 8:02 AM
Personally I don't see the problem. If Facebook will allow more people see my work I don't have a problem with posting 600 pixel files. When we post an image anywhere on line, if someone wants it they are going to steal it and less than honest web sites will use them.
Thats exactly right Georg! There are many amateur photographers on Flickr, NPN, Fred Miranda, Photo Net, Facebook and naturscapes just to name a few. If you get your services out in front of them, then there is probally a good chance that they will look a little deeper into what you offer. I can speak from experience that many persons on Facebook in particular keep up with my workshop listings, buy books that I offer and sign up for classes and seminars as a direct result.
In fact there are many pro photographers that have embrased this form of social marketing including William Niell, Tony Sweet, Brenda Tharp and many more. Just some thoughts, Joe
Posted by Brad Mangas on October 18, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Paranoia can always be factored in to such refusal of posting photos online. Social networking is here and it is growing and like it or not it will become an important marketing tool exactly as Eric described. Cations should always be taken to protect your images when posting online. So if you absolutely do not ever ever ever want anyone to copy your 72 dpi 480x320 image and use it as their own then the answer is clear and definite. Do not ever put a picture online anywhere at anytime for any reason, period, paranoia over. Or, be careful, have fun and enjoy what you do.
Refusal to use such wide reaching tools as social networking outlets in my opinion just shows a lack of knowledge on how to use such outlets effectively. Like maybe making an image 60x40px and a link to your website for example.
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 18, 2009 at 11:15 AM
Just a thought and this section here:
"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")"
I have read in threads on NPN and other photographic sites where people will not enter competitions or contest where the statement above is used in connection to the competition or contest legal statement because it is ripping off the photographer.
I have to wonder why some people feel it is ok for facebook, but not ok for competitions or photo contests.
I do not want to pick up a brochure, see and ad for facebook on line where my image is on it and I didn't give them persmission, but by posting there that is what could happen.
Posted by Brad Mangas on October 18, 2009 at 3:39 PM
I just glanced through NPN's terms of use. They are quite lengthy and well laid out. In a nutshell, images are copyrighted by owner and may not be used by others or legal action may result.
Ok, say Jim Beam wants to copy your picture and use in on his evil website for whaterver his evil little heart desires. His choices are:
1: Go to facebook and copy your thumbnail because after all facebook says they can use it for whatever they want. So it must be ok for anyone to use it for whatever they want.
Or:
2: Come to NPN and get it because it's 720x640 and looks better.
I would recommend that no one be so naive to think for a second the lengthy policy that is written for use of images here on NPN will prevent a dishonest person from copying an image. If they want it they will get it.
Does anyone know or ever think of the number of images copied from NPN and misused? After all we are all on the same side here so no bad people would ever come here to get a picture. Besides, there's a Terms of Use statement.
Cindy - sure you can do all kinds of stuff in FB and check out all kinds of work - and that is also exactly what everyone wants you to do. But it DOES take time - lots of it.
Cheers
Georg
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 19, 2009 at 4:42 AM
Hey Georg,
Any effort to market your work takes time .. usually LOTS of it. In that sense, FB, et al, is no better or worse than any other tool. For some people, it can be an incredibly effective marketing tool. For others, not so much.
Hank P wrote: "Mmmmmm. Try this on a business model. Start a list of folks that buy from you after facebook contact. Start another list of people that buy from you after finding you in other ways. See which fills faster. "
There are lots of ways FB can benefit a photographer's marketing plan - direct sales (either stock or prints) from FB users is merely one - and, I'll hazard a guess, not the most effective one, for most folks.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Jesse Speer on October 19, 2009 at 1:04 PM
There's a good reason that most of us who use the service are enthusiastically sticking with it - "shady" terms and all. Every other tool I've used for online marketing/exposure purposes have fallen incredibly short of the impact that FB offers. Not that other tools fail, it's just that the Facebook model is a dream situation for artists ... free, highly interactive and extremely viral. Enjoy it Joe (I just became a fan of your page). I know I sure am enjoying it, when I have time. And most unexpectedly, it has made a very large impact on my largely internet-based photography business.
I'll share a fun bit of news that shows the potential of Facebook (or any other risky means of floating JPEGs worldwide). I am getting ready to enter a really nice licensing contract to sell prints through a major retailer, after the art buyer discovered my work through a Facebook connection ... a major boost to my developing photography career. I almost want to beg Facebook to please use my crappy JPEG files as a form of thanks! But realistically, they likely have no real need for them - and really are only protecting their own rear end because of how their viral sharing/distribution system works. Maybe naive ... and if they prove otherwise, I'll simply delete my account according to their terms (I can't do that with a photo contest). They've already proven that they have at least some measure of respect for artists when it comes to developing/refining their terms of use - when they recently dropped their "perpetual rights" language due to "popular demand".
I've simply posted a handful of portfolio photos on my page, and drop occasional notices of website updates. Not bad for something that is free and might take 10 minutes out of my month. It's a performance-enhanced blog. A website with an built-in audience. It's pretty easy, if you want it too be. And pretty time-consuming, if you want it to be. Wish I had more time to play around in there, that's for sure! I do lurk on many of your pages when I have time.
Anyway, this is a good discussion - despite the original intent. Congrats on the new page Joe. Click my blog link below to find my page ... let's get connected and share each other's pages.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 19, 2009 at 1:04 PM
To those of you who have mentioned people stealing images, I don't think that matches Hank's concern. The problem with Facebook's policy is that if they used your image, it wouldn't be theft. It would be legal given the rights you've granted them by posting.
Now whether or not that's an issue is something else. Sure, Facebook can't do much with a 600 pixel image, but it is possible that web ads of some type could be created. On the other hand, I think for sites like Facebook that's almost just a CYA clause, and I don't know that they would do anything untoward. (I've also heard talk that site like FB have to have the rights to reproduce images because of how they are shared across their network, but I have no idea if this is true in a legal sense.)
Posted by Carl Donohue on October 19, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Hey Folks,
I have no better understanding of this than many others, but I tend to suspect, as Jesse and David just pointed toward, that the FB policy is not in order to give them access to 'free photos', but to cover them from use on the FB website .. wasn't there an issue with google for having images in their search engine? It's far easier, and cheaper, for sites like that, to have a 'coverall clause' .. NPN"s terms are great, but the nature of the site is vastly different, and the same policy wouldn't adhere so well, IMO. I don't think FB's policy is a photo grab at all - more a cover-their-junk policy.
Cheers
Carl
Posted by Carl Donohue on November 15, 2009 at 10:00 PM
hey folks,
Perhaps there's another angle to the facebook/twitter/etc world. I just wrote a quick comparison on my blog, examining the similarities between, say, facebook and WalMart. Hopefully, facebook and similar won't have an adverse effect on sites like NPN.
Discussion
21 repliesIf you are interested in becoming a fan, then click the link below. I would love to see everyone online and discuss all the great photo ops we have here in the Mid Atlantic and Southeast US.
Joseph Rossbach Photography on Facebook
Jim Salge Photography on Facebook
As for copyright terms...I make sure to use the same sense I use when posting to other sites...small files, watermarked, etc. It's something to weigh, but I find the benefits more valuable than the prospect of them using one of my low rez images in connection with Facebook. Why...I'm hoping local buyers will find the site, and follow it...and I can use it as part of my business strategy. However, I'm in a different place in my career than many others on this site.
Terms: From Facebook:
Sharing Your Content and Information
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:
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.
That doesn't come within two solar systems and a whole law firm of our business model.
Reminds me of a good friend in the final stages of negotiations for a mega-dollar photo license, when the client found another version of the same scene my friend had listed on one of the royalty free sites. He made $1 on his RF sale, but at the cost of a nearly $20,000 photo license.
Not coincidentally Face Book has the same initials as Funny Bone. Right up there with a pie in the face.
If Farce Book wants to use photos, they can pay for them just as any ethical business would be expected to do.
"All content, including photography and text on this site is copyright the respective photographers/authors. Any use or reproduction of the content without the written permission of the photographer and/or author is strictly forbidden. Please read our Terms of Use before using this site."
Pretty darned straight forward while protecting the photographer well, don't you think?
Where did it come from?
Right here at NPN. If those conditions didn't exist for the site, I doubt any serious photographers, much less pro photographers, would ever post photos here.
You have to ask yourself why Facebook DOES NOT have anything like that for photos. Hmmmm......
I would guess that Joseph's business model includes being in touch with a lot of people... in which case facebook sounds like a great opportunity.
It's a business, so think about the business side. If you like facebook and twitter and such things, have a ball. But track your contacts resulting in sales and see whether it's an entertaining hobby or part of a successful business model.
No dispute here, just a suggested way to evaluate your business strategy. Let us know if it works, but don't count on me to post even 25 pixel photos on facebook. I refuse to endorse any company with that kind of photo policy. Can't you just see other companies starting to do the same thing with the argument that "Facebook does it, and you have your photos on facebook." Nah. Label me a curmudgeon. But one with a successful business and healthy accounts.
georg
Anyway this is me on Facebook
TRB Photography on Facebook
In fact there are many pro photographers that have embrased this form of social marketing including William Niell, Tony Sweet, Brenda Tharp and many more. Just some thoughts, Joe
Refusal to use such wide reaching tools as social networking outlets in my opinion just shows a lack of knowledge on how to use such outlets effectively. Like maybe making an image 60x40px and a link to your website for example.
I have read in threads on NPN and other photographic sites where people will not enter competitions or contest where the statement above is used in connection to the competition or contest legal statement because it is ripping off the photographer.
I have to wonder why some people feel it is ok for facebook, but not ok for competitions or photo contests.
I do not want to pick up a brochure, see and ad for facebook on line where my image is on it and I didn't give them persmission, but by posting there that is what could happen.
Ok, say Jim Beam wants to copy your picture and use in on his evil website for whaterver his evil little heart desires. His choices are:
1: Go to facebook and copy your thumbnail because after all facebook says they can use it for whatever they want. So it must be ok for anyone to use it for whatever they want.
Or:
2: Come to NPN and get it because it's 720x640 and looks better.
I would recommend that no one be so naive to think for a second the lengthy policy that is written for use of images here on NPN will prevent a dishonest person from copying an image. If they want it they will get it.
Does anyone know or ever think of the number of images copied from NPN and misused? After all we are all on the same side here so no bad people would ever come here to get a picture. Besides, there's a Terms of Use statement.
Cheers
Georg
Any effort to market your work takes time .. usually LOTS of it. In that sense, FB, et al, is no better or worse than any other tool. For some people, it can be an incredibly effective marketing tool. For others, not so much.
Hank P wrote:
"Mmmmmm. Try this on a business model. Start a list of folks that buy from you after facebook contact. Start another list of people that buy from you after finding you in other ways. See which fills faster. "
There are lots of ways FB can benefit a photographer's marketing plan - direct sales (either stock or prints) from FB users is merely one - and, I'll hazard a guess, not the most effective one, for most folks.
Cheers
Carl
I'll share a fun bit of news that shows the potential of Facebook (or any other risky means of floating JPEGs worldwide). I am getting ready to enter a really nice licensing contract to sell prints through a major retailer, after the art buyer discovered my work through a Facebook connection ... a major boost to my developing photography career. I almost want to beg Facebook to please use my crappy JPEG files as a form of thanks! But realistically, they likely have no real need for them - and really are only protecting their own rear end because of how their viral sharing/distribution system works. Maybe naive ... and if they prove otherwise, I'll simply delete my account according to their terms (I can't do that with a photo contest). They've already proven that they have at least some measure of respect for artists when it comes to developing/refining their terms of use - when they recently dropped their "perpetual rights" language due to "popular demand".
I've simply posted a handful of portfolio photos on my page, and drop occasional notices of website updates. Not bad for something that is free and might take 10 minutes out of my month. It's a performance-enhanced blog. A website with an built-in audience. It's pretty easy, if you want it too be. And pretty time-consuming, if you want it to be. Wish I had more time to play around in there, that's for sure! I do lurk on many of your pages when I have time.
Anyway, this is a good discussion - despite the original intent. Congrats on the new page Joe. Click my blog link below to find my page ... let's get connected and share each other's pages.
Now whether or not that's an issue is something else. Sure, Facebook can't do much with a 600 pixel image, but it is possible that web ads of some type could be created. On the other hand, I think for sites like Facebook that's almost just a CYA clause, and I don't know that they would do anything untoward. (I've also heard talk that site like FB have to have the rights to reproduce images because of how they are shared across their network, but I have no idea if this is true in a legal sense.)
I have no better understanding of this than many others, but I tend to suspect, as Jesse and David just pointed toward, that the FB policy is not in order to give them access to 'free photos', but to cover them from use on the FB website .. wasn't there an issue with google for having images in their search engine? It's far easier, and cheaper, for sites like that, to have a 'coverall clause' .. NPN"s terms are great, but the nature of the site is vastly different, and the same policy wouldn't adhere so well, IMO. I don't think FB's policy is a photo grab at all - more a cover-their-junk policy.
Cheers
Carl
Perhaps there's another angle to the facebook/twitter/etc world. I just wrote a quick comparison on my blog, examining the similarities between, say, facebook and WalMart. Hopefully, facebook and similar won't have an adverse effect on sites like NPN.
Cheers
Carl