1982chris911 said:
100 said:
1982chris911 said:
100 said:
1982chris911 said:
Maiaibing said:
1982chris911 said:
Facebooks usage of pictures there could already be coined as commercial - especially if they use your pictures to make advertisements (a right which you grant to them in their service's terms & conditions) which was singed by all users.
I trust you do not believe this stupidity yourself.
I am leaving this discussion now. Everyone can now easily draw the right conclusion from the above exchange.
And in this regard I know what I am talking about:
Yahoo already uses pictures which I posted on Flickr as advertisement material. Of course they never asked me for permission. You can just google "Yahoo Weather App" in pictures. about 10% of all pictures in the first 500 hits are by me ... Some are even taken from my apartment in New York so no one else could have taken them ever!
They even cut out my signature and replaced it by someone elses for the pictures they used in Apples App and Googles Android store ...
Maybe you should warn people about the practices of social media instead of scaring them with your (unfounded) interpretation of the consequences of EU proposals.
Or simply delete your social media accounts if you don’t like their terms of use. No one is forcing you to put photos on Flickr. You complain about Yahoo using your pictures without your permission, yet you link to your Flickr account with every post here.
Ok so you wanna say that people like me have no right to share their pictures online and complain if some company uses them for ads without permission ... just bc. the pictures are there and hey they can use them and don't need to pay someone like eg. Gatty images ... Great !!!
But of course if some architect or some lawyers who represent his rights wants to collect royalties from people who take pictures of some buildings they know nothing about in a city they maybe visit for the first time that is OK ...
What great show of double standards ...
Where exactly do I say you have no right share pictures online?
And where do I say it’s ok for architects to collect royalties from people taking pictures?
These kind of conclusions say a lot about your (lack of) interpretations skills.
"Or simply delete your social media accounts if you don’t like their terms of use. No one is forcing you to put photos on Flickr." Sounds to me like I have no right to complain ... and btw I did not bring this whole FB/Google/Yahoo thing up first hand, it was only an answer to another person saying that such thing does not happen ... well in my case it happened ... and that is the only point which I wanted to make by mentioning this ... so maybe you should also read the context of how that came into place first before making such statements ...
I also think it is funny that you who could obviously be a victim of such laws if they ever happen, says that an opinion which is based on a lot of sources who everyone can access online, thinks there is a need to somehow protect what a certain MEP (Mr. Cavada) of the EU made out of proposal which had the aim to protect photographer's rights within the EU ... otherwise your statement of "scaring" does not make much sense ... bc. if that what MR Cavada purposes really happenes this
IS scary and will limit photography a lot in EU cities... especially the one we are talking about in the context of this forum... purely assuming most ppl. here wanna use their gear in public without being questioned or harassed ...
I ask you again, where do I say you have no rights to post pictures online and/or complain about anything?
If I say “throw away your old shoes, no one is forcing you to wear them” do you really think I mean you have no right to wear old shoes and complain about them?
On page 2 and 3 of this discussion I made it clear we have different interpretations of what “commercial use” amounts to in this case. I don’t think tourists and amateur photographers have anything to fear.
I do believe architects and artists should have some rights.
Imagine you give permission to a charity to use one of your pictures for their campaign. They use it on a billboard in a public place. I take a picture of that billboard (basically copying it) and use it commercially (print it on T-shirts, make postcards, sell it to other people) without your permission and without paying you anything.
You’re ok with that?
If not, don’t you think other people (like architects, painters, sculptures) should have some rights as well? If I design a building, paint a picture of make a sculpture that ends up in a public place do you think it’s fair anyone can use an image of that work for things like advertising and merchandising?
This has nothing to do with tourists taking pictures or amateur photographers using “professional” looking camera’s. You can believe whatever you want, you can interpret any proposal however you please, but that doesn’t mean your interpretation is the right one. To me you are just trying to scare people without any real facts, any relevant jurisprudence and/or any real arguments.
If you make enough smoke some people might believe the world is on fire, but I’m not one of them.
