I don't use FaceBook, G+ or any social media except for LinkdIn. Guess I need to reread their TOS before I decide whether to stay with them, or kill the account.
Aside from these places being a huge waste of time in my opinion, the less info that's out there about me, the better.
Oh, this has just got to stop! When did this runaway train get started anyway!
Posted by David Chauvin on September 6, 2013 at 7:59 PM
There is no free lunch. FB is a multibillion dollar corporation that has to generate revenue and its only product is information. Yes it is pretty bold to claim ownership of all content but they did not get filthy rich by being timid.
I only have a few profile pictures uploaded and for a while I have only been posting image links back to my website so that cuts off one avenue of image theft and drives the traffic to my site if someone wants to view the full image. Only a small thumbnail appears on the FB page. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on these assumptions.
Every click of the mouse on the internet is already tracked seven ways to Sunday so FB gathering data is nothing new. The question for photographers becomes whether or not the audience you can reach through FB is worth the risk of having personal info and low resolution images used in advertisements without extra compensation. I'll take a wait and see approach before deleting my accounts. I have minimal interaction there anyway so it would not be a huge loss.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 7, 2013 at 9:56 PM
Facebook said, “We are taking the time to ensure that user comments are reviewed and taken into consideration to determine whether further updates are necessary...
THEY STILL DON'T GET IT. This clearly reveals their intention. I had recently considered adding a Facebook presence in my social media exposure, and have fought the urge all this time. No more fight, no way Jose on FB, because if they are so flippant about their response to an ridiculous attempt by them at this point in history, one could only imagine what future plans are. I do shoot portraits and weddings too, and it's hard not having a FB account, young moms and brides tend to live and breath on it. But for nature photographers wanting to promote themselves, I have to question whether the risk is worth the audience type.
Posted by Mia McPherson on September 8, 2013 at 11:00 AM
I never posted many images on FB just links to my blogs posts but today I removed ever image except my profile and cover photo. I also uploaded this new cover photo and FB can bite me. I shut the FB Android app off on my phone too.
Posted by Mia McPherson on September 8, 2013 at 11:17 AM
Thanks Preston. I keep a FB account in part because of stolen images being found there, if you aren't a member you can't see where the stolen images are to report them.
If they ban me for my cover image, so be it. They can still bite me.
Posted by Ed Cordes on September 8, 2013 at 9:29 PM
I have a personal FB account that I hardly ever use and don't ever, ever place "real" images there. I do use it to maintain our Lions Club FB account which has proven very useful for our club. In general I think most posts I see on FB are a wast of time.
Posted by Luke Ormand on September 9, 2013 at 7:36 PM
I don't understand the outrage at facebook for this. They're telling you these are the new rules - their service (which costs millions [billions?] to run) is free and optional. If enough people leave because of these guidelines, they will begin losing money and change their ways.
There seems to be an overall feeling that social media is an inherent right and that the sites should only do what every single person wants done. That's impossible and ridiculous. I get why some people are "offended" by the new policy, the idea that facebook will take your images (or likeness) and use it for their profit, but let's take a step back and again realize that it's a voluntary program and it's FREE. Furthermore, how many photos are on facebook? There are estimates that over 90 BILLION photos sit on facebook's servers, with 6 BILLION images being added every month. Your odds of winning the lotto AND being struck by lightning are considerably better than ever having an image used by facebook for advertising (on the service that you use, for free, at your own discretion)
Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 9, 2013 at 8:56 PM
Those are good points Luke. What I get stirred about is motivation and overall agenda. If it's innocuous thenaybe there isn't a problem. But sometimes the intangible is to be considered and my trust radar for Facebook and Google is constantly causing me to keep a watchful eye. I think we're seeing evidence of bigger ideas forthcoming. I think we do have a risk of getting ripped off because the work of NPNers stands out, it's not Instagram-soaked phone grabs. It's ok to disagree, that's just my 2.4 cents (price has gone up).
Posted by Luke Ormand on September 10, 2013 at 10:02 AM
Paul,
Thranks for the reply. I think it's good to disagree and frankly, I can understand people being miffed, but it's the "outrage" I don't get. One more point. A lot of professional (or amateur) photographers use facebook to increase their exposure, gain new fans (followers/buyers), make sales, advertise their workshops or other wears. Facebook provides this advertising oppurtunity for free, complete with hundreds of millions of potential customers all easily reachable. Does it not make sense that some sacrifices must be made in order to benefit from such a potentially great platform? So it's OK for the user to leach off of Facebook and their costs, servers, updates, users etc. (for free) but the minute facebook says, well we MAY want to utilize a statistically insignficant portion of the 90 BILLION images that rest on our servers for advertising, people want to throw their arms up and say "I'm leaving"? I don't know, it's a bit of a headscratcher... I guess it's the classic new America. Take take take, but the minute someone asks for something in return let's be outraged. (I'm generalizing a bit for effect)
Posted by Brad Hill on September 21, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Hey Luke,
I can't understand your defence of Facebook - this isn't a Facebook roast...it's a well-deserved caution to photographers about the consequences of posting images on Facebook.
Facebook's business model (that they willingly chose) is to maximize the numbers of their members through offering a free service. This gives them clout with advertisers, which impacts on advertising rates, and ultimately effects share value. They are data-mining members activities constantly so they can fine-tune marketing efforts and advertising programs (which again add to the value of the company). Competition with other social networks forces them to offer more and more features and services so that they can continue or extend market dominance - it has el zippo to do with a benevolent desire to offer free things to people out of the good of their heart. The only ethics they must subscribe to are those enforced by law or those resulting in policies that will impact negatively on the numbers of members they have (i.e., from a PR perspective).
In terms of using them as a marketing tool - anyone using a personal page for commercial marketing purposes risks having their account shut down - by Facebook's rules they must take out a corporate page. Recently Facebook has been more vigilant in watching for this violation of their terms of service. And, to get your message out to all your followers using a corporate page you have to pay - it's NOT a free service.
In terms of Facebook automatically taking possession of the content posted on their site: Of course very little of it is used by them for marketing purposes - that's a no-brainer. However, the minute you give up the rights to your photos (or other content) by posting it on Facebook you have instantly reduced its economic value - you can no longer (ethically or legally) offer up that content as an exclusive to a buyer. Just last week I negotiated a deal with a buyer that included giving them the exclusive rights to the images - and they paid 300% more because of that exclusive. If the images were on Facebook - good bye to 2/3 of that money.
Obviously not everyone is a professional photographer (thank god). However, many of the folks posting on this site probably have aspirations of selling some of their work now or in the future. They should be made aware of the potential economic consequences of posting that content on Facebook.
In terms of using Facebook as a "free" marketing service for photographers: I could get into a long discussion about the pros and cons of that (everything from a lack of ability to effectively control one's brand through to the issue of many Facebook users wanting FREE things only and the difficulty in actually monetizing your time and even the wasted time and effort in the production of so much FREE content for Facebook), but for now I'll just say that the "there's no free lunch" aphorism applies very well to using them as a marketing service.
Note that I am NOT saying Facebook doesn't have a place. Nice place for families and friends to interact; can be used reasonably effectively by budget-constrained non-profit organizations (including conservation organizations), etc. But as a place to "peddle" ones images and photographic services - let the non-buyer beware!
And...to put it simply and bluntly - for professional photographers giving up the rights to one's photos is just plain stupid. Of course, I suppose someone could just post their crappy, non-economically viable images there - now THAT'S a great marketing plan!!
There's a darn good reason that the American Society of Media Photographers has come down so hard on Facebook's new terms of service.
Brad, I think you make some really valid points that tie directly into why I won't use FB or any other social media site. Thanks for sharing.
"...the minute you give up the rights to your photos (or other content) by posting it on Facebook you have instantly reduced its economic value - you can no longer (ethically or legally) offer up that content as an exclusive to a buyer.
.
This statement bears repeating, not only in terms of social media, but also contests and other venues that take away our rights to our own work.
--P
Posted by Paul DeCesare on September 25, 2013 at 8:32 AM
Excellent article on this very subject, worth a read.
Discussion
18 repliesAside from these places being a huge waste of time in my opinion, the less info that's out there about me, the better.
--P
What about the recently introduced facebook buttons on NPN? This way our images can still end up on facebook!
I only have a few profile pictures uploaded and for a while I have only been posting image links back to my website so that cuts off one avenue of image theft and drives the traffic to my site if someone wants to view the full image. Only a small thumbnail appears on the FB page. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on these assumptions.
Every click of the mouse on the internet is already tracked seven ways to Sunday so FB gathering data is nothing new. The question for photographers becomes whether or not the audience you can reach through FB is worth the risk of having personal info and low resolution images used in advertisements without extra compensation. I'll take a wait and see approach before deleting my accounts. I have minimal interaction there anyway so it would not be a huge loss.
Sandy
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/facebook-delays-new-privacy-policy/?smid=fb-share&_r=2&
THEY STILL DON'T GET IT. This clearly reveals their intention. I had recently considered adding a Facebook presence in my social media exposure, and have fought the urge all this time. No more fight, no way Jose on FB, because if they are so flippant about their response to an ridiculous attempt by them at this point in history, one could only imagine what future plans are. I do shoot portraits and weddings too, and it's hard not having a FB account, young moms and brides tend to live and breath on it. But for nature photographers wanting to promote themselves, I have to question whether the risk is worth the audience type.
--P
If they ban me for my cover image, so be it. They can still bite me.
There seems to be an overall feeling that social media is an inherent right and that the sites should only do what every single person wants done. That's impossible and ridiculous. I get why some people are "offended" by the new policy, the idea that facebook will take your images (or likeness) and use it for their profit, but let's take a step back and again realize that it's a voluntary program and it's FREE. Furthermore, how many photos are on facebook? There are estimates that over 90 BILLION photos sit on facebook's servers, with 6 BILLION images being added every month. Your odds of winning the lotto AND being struck by lightning are considerably better than ever having an image used by facebook for advertising (on the service that you use, for free, at your own discretion)
Thranks for the reply. I think it's good to disagree and frankly, I can understand people being miffed, but it's the "outrage" I don't get. One more point. A lot of professional (or amateur) photographers use facebook to increase their exposure, gain new fans (followers/buyers), make sales, advertise their workshops or other wears. Facebook provides this advertising oppurtunity for free, complete with hundreds of millions of potential customers all easily reachable. Does it not make sense that some sacrifices must be made in order to benefit from such a potentially great platform? So it's OK for the user to leach off of Facebook and their costs, servers, updates, users etc. (for free) but the minute facebook says, well we MAY want to utilize a statistically insignficant portion of the 90 BILLION images that rest on our servers for advertising, people want to throw their arms up and say "I'm leaving"? I don't know, it's a bit of a headscratcher... I guess it's the classic new America. Take take take, but the minute someone asks for something in return let's be outraged. (I'm generalizing a bit for effect)
I can't understand your defence of Facebook - this isn't a Facebook roast...it's a well-deserved caution to photographers about the consequences of posting images on Facebook.
Facebook's business model (that they willingly chose) is to maximize the numbers of their members through offering a free service. This gives them clout with advertisers, which impacts on advertising rates, and ultimately effects share value. They are data-mining members activities constantly so they can fine-tune marketing efforts and advertising programs (which again add to the value of the company). Competition with other social networks forces them to offer more and more features and services so that they can continue or extend market dominance - it has el zippo to do with a benevolent desire to offer free things to people out of the good of their heart. The only ethics they must subscribe to are those enforced by law or those resulting in policies that will impact negatively on the numbers of members they have (i.e., from a PR perspective).
In terms of using them as a marketing tool - anyone using a personal page for commercial marketing purposes risks having their account shut down - by Facebook's rules they must take out a corporate page. Recently Facebook has been more vigilant in watching for this violation of their terms of service. And, to get your message out to all your followers using a corporate page you have to pay - it's NOT a free service.
In terms of Facebook automatically taking possession of the content posted on their site: Of course very little of it is used by them for marketing purposes - that's a no-brainer. However, the minute you give up the rights to your photos (or other content) by posting it on Facebook you have instantly reduced its economic value - you can no longer (ethically or legally) offer up that content as an exclusive to a buyer. Just last week I negotiated a deal with a buyer that included giving them the exclusive rights to the images - and they paid 300% more because of that exclusive. If the images were on Facebook - good bye to 2/3 of that money.
Obviously not everyone is a professional photographer (thank god). However, many of the folks posting on this site probably have aspirations of selling some of their work now or in the future. They should be made aware of the potential economic consequences of posting that content on Facebook.
In terms of using Facebook as a "free" marketing service for photographers: I could get into a long discussion about the pros and cons of that (everything from a lack of ability to effectively control one's brand through to the issue of many Facebook users wanting FREE things only and the difficulty in actually monetizing your time and even the wasted time and effort in the production of so much FREE content for Facebook), but for now I'll just say that the "there's no free lunch" aphorism applies very well to using them as a marketing service.
Note that I am NOT saying Facebook doesn't have a place. Nice place for families and friends to interact; can be used reasonably effectively by budget-constrained non-profit organizations (including conservation organizations), etc. But as a place to "peddle" ones images and photographic services - let the non-buyer beware!
And...to put it simply and bluntly - for professional photographers giving up the rights to one's photos is just plain stupid. Of course, I suppose someone could just post their crappy, non-economically viable images there - now THAT'S a great marketing plan!!
There's a darn good reason that the American Society of Media Photographers has come down so hard on Facebook's new terms of service.
Cheers...
Brad
.
This statement bears repeating, not only in terms of social media, but also contests and other venues that take away our rights to our own work.
--P