5 ms·

Why Does Facebook Hate This Woman?

55 points by DanielBMarkham 16y ago

fomojola 16y ago
Facebook's ad filtering is actually kinda retarded, and you're right: they definitely accept/reject based on advertiser size. I tried running a little ad using a picture of a pair of feet on a scale and it got the "doesn't meet the standards" message. However I see pictures like that all the time, with quite frankly little discernable difference except the name of the company running the ad. I'll have to try it and see if it gets through with a Facebook landing page.
- scott_s 16y ago
  Was the image your own, or did you copy it from somewhere? If you copied it from somewhere, what are the chances that it's a common enough image for FB to know you don't own the copyright?
ig1 16y ago
The site you were advertising looks like a health scam site (not saying that it is; just that's what it looks like on first impression), did Facebook specifically reject your ad on the basis of your image or due to the nature of your site? (i.e were other ads with the exact same details approved)
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  It was specifically rejected because of the image. "...The image included in your ad is not suitable to appear on Facebook..."
  - ig1 16y ago
    Interesting. A lot of advertisers have been complaining about ad cloning for a while, where companies clone the adverts from their competitors. I wonder if Facebook have introduced some sort of automated filter to reject clone images, etc. or if they're just manually rejecting the ones that have been vastly overused.
    - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
      On my blog fan page (visible from the site), I post funny pictures several times a day -- it's a habit I got into months ago. I've found lately that if I pick up a funny pic from the web, sometimes FB recognizes it and won't take it. But if I shave it some -- change the dimensions -- then it goes through okay. So yes, there is something going on there.
      - ig1 16y ago
        I guess it's a copyright detection thing then.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        izak30 16y ago
        This image and content strikes me. I'm guessing that this woman, if she ever found out, could probably sue several of these advertisers for using her image without permission to sell a product. I think that many people forget that just because you found it, doesn't mean you can use it. Your argument is that if dozens of people are doing it, it's probably ok, that's totally wrong.
        ig1 16y ago
        I wonder where the image originated from, I would have guessed from a stock image library somewhere, but those kind of places tend to be very aggressive in tracking down unauthorized uses.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        tghw 16y ago
        Absolutely wrong. If you do not have a license to use the image or know for a fact that it is in the public domain, then it is a safe bet that you are in violation of the copyright. And just because you think you could reproduce the image does not give you the right to use it.
joshes 16y ago
To me, what is a bit disheartening about all of this is that if you want to advertise to Facebook's massive user base, you have to play by Facebook's inconsistent rules and enforcement; there's not much of a way around it. And the system is not set up to help you succeed. It is instead set up to bend and morph in whatever way helps Facebook, no matter how positively/negatively it affects those actually purchasing the advertising and fueling the growth. Of course it is within Facebook's rights to structure their platform as they see fit. It is just a bit sad that those services and brands with the largest power bases seem to throw their weight around in the most antagonistic ways imaginable.
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  It's hardly an inconsistent rule for them to say essentially "we know this isn't your image, use one you own".
  - ecounysis 16y ago
    Does facebook have any legal liability if their advertisers use copyrighted images?
    - ig1 16y ago
      Interesting point, I don't think anyone's actually tested it in court. For Facebook photo sharing where they're merely a hosting site FB probably has the DMCA protection, but for their Ad Network it's potentially more ambiguous.
ig1 16y ago
I don't think Facebook hate small advertisers, I think they do (1) Care about ad quality (2) Care about short term gain. Facebook have really made a big drive to get rid of affiliate rebills, etc. as Facebook users view them as scams and they end up damaging Facebook's reputation. From my experience if you have a legitimate business it's unlikely that FB are going to reject your ads. Facebook want your money, the only reason they'll not want your money is if the ads will cost them more reputational damage then the money they bring in. I think their drive for short term gains has led them to some decisions which are damaging to small businesses (CPC pricing, no frequency capping), but thinking "they're out to get you" is just simple paranoia in my opinion.
BudVVeezer 16y ago
I am pretty sure "famous grey shirt girl" is actually Jose Lima's wife. http://digamma.net/btfwiki/Jose_Lima%27s_wife http://digamma.net/btfwiki/Jose_Lima%27s_wife
- BudVVeezer 16y ago
  In case you're wondering what this has to do with the topic at hand: Jose Lima was a well-known baseball player who died last year. His wife became an internet meme before he died, but I'm guessing someone at facebook decided to use her image was likely a legal violation, not to mention in poor taste.
- michaelcampbell 16y ago
  That looks nothing like the "grey shirt girl" to me. There's more to a person than a large bosom and blonde hair, and actually even those 2 features of the two pictures look radically different. But, I could very easily be wrong.
to 16y ago
facebook keep denying a mobile service i helped building with the reason it is a subscription service. but it is not. i keep mailing them and always get the same automated message that they do not allow mobile subscription services. they really just do not care. no wonder that 80% of their advertisers cloak their landingpages. their ad marketing team is obviously, and i got that confirmed from other people in the industry, unprofessional newbies who dont know how the industry works. sad but true.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
JeremyBanks 16y ago
So from what he's posted it appears that Mr. Markham thinks that ignorance of copyright status of an image means that he can do what he wants with it; when it actually means the complete opposite. That casts sufficient doubt on the actual reasons behind what he's writing about that the posts loses any value, except to promote his website. The title of this post even reads like a linkbait ad you'd see on Facebook; quite a turn-off.
tokenadult 16y ago
I see from a link via RiderOfGiraffes http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1737491 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1737491 that TinEye has been discussed here on HN plenty of times before. I have recently been using TinEye http://www.tineye.com/ http://www.tineye.com/ to trace the provenance of images I see on the Web. (I learned about TinEye, in fact, from an MIT alumnus who was wondering about whether a Facebook ad image was computer-generated or a photograph of an actual person. The image is a photograph of a famous model.) Whatever exactly it is that Facebook is doing to enforce its policies, it plainly has technical means for identifying images that duplicate other images, and then some set of policies for resolving doubts in doubtful cases into decisions about whether or not an advertiser can use a particular image. Just stay within the rules, and all should be okay.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  Yep, TinEye was used here, as indicated in the comments over on the blog. Didn't help for this particular person, and I got four emails this morning all claiming she was a different person. It's a great tool. Highly recommended. Anybody posting images should use it. The problem is what to do when you get a negative result. If Facebook wants to start requiring paperwork for every little 160 x 120 ad image that's fine with me: I'm a photographer and would love taking a weekend and shooting some stuff. But I'm not sure that a negative result on a Google or TinEye search is indicative that copyrights are being violated. If it is, there's a hell of a lot of material on the web (and Facebook) that needs to be removed. As indicated in the article, it's not whatever the rules are or aren't: it's the selective enforcement that can drive folks nuts.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - xsmasher 16y ago
    >The problem is what to do when you get a negative result. That's easy; if you don't know who made the image, then chances are you don't have the right to use that image. You find a new image that you do have rights to. You don't assume that the image has no owner just because you can't find the owner.

Facebook's ad filtering is actually kinda retarded, and you're right: they definitely accept/reject based on advertiser size. I tried running a little ad using a picture of a pair of feet on a scale and it got the "doesn't meet the standards" message. However I see pictures like that all the time, with quite frankly little discernable difference except the name of the company running the ad. I'll have to try it and see if it gets through with a Facebook landing page.

scott_s 16y ago
Was the image your own, or did you copy it from somewhere? If you copied it from somewhere, what are the chances that it's a common enough image for FB to know you don't own the copyright?

ig1 16y ago

The site you were advertising looks like a health scam site (not saying that it is; just that's what it looks like on first impression), did Facebook specifically reject your ad on the basis of your image or due to the nature of your site? (i.e were other ads with the exact same details approved)

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
It was specifically rejected because of the image. "...The image included in your ad is not suitable to appear on Facebook..."
- ig1 16y ago
  Interesting. A lot of advertisers have been complaining about ad cloning for a while, where companies clone the adverts from their competitors. I wonder if Facebook have introduced some sort of automated filter to reject clone images, etc. or if they're just manually rejecting the ones that have been vastly overused.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    On my blog fan page (visible from the site), I post funny pictures several times a day -- it's a habit I got into months ago. I've found lately that if I pick up a funny pic from the web, sometimes FB recognizes it and won't take it. But if I shave it some -- change the dimensions -- then it goes through okay. So yes, there is something going on there.
    - ig1 16y ago
      I guess it's a copyright detection thing then.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        izak30 16y ago
        This image and content strikes me. I'm guessing that this woman, if she ever found out, could probably sue several of these advertisers for using her image without permission to sell a product. I think that many people forget that just because you found it, doesn't mean you can use it. Your argument is that if dozens of people are doing it, it's probably ok, that's totally wrong.
        ig1 16y ago
        I wonder where the image originated from, I would have guessed from a stock image library somewhere, but those kind of places tend to be very aggressive in tracking down unauthorized uses.
        deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
        tghw 16y ago
        Absolutely wrong. If you do not have a license to use the image or know for a fact that it is in the public domain, then it is a safe bet that you are in violation of the copyright. And just because you think you could reproduce the image does not give you the right to use it.

joshes 16y ago

To me, what is a bit disheartening about all of this is that if you want to advertise to Facebook's massive user base, you have to play by Facebook's inconsistent rules and enforcement; there's not much of a way around it. And the system is not set up to help you succeed. It is instead set up to bend and morph in whatever way helps Facebook, no matter how positively/negatively it affects those actually purchasing the advertising and fueling the growth. Of course it is within Facebook's rights to structure their platform as they see fit. It is just a bit sad that those services and brands with the largest power bases seem to throw their weight around in the most antagonistic ways imaginable.

ceejayoz 16y ago
It's hardly an inconsistent rule for them to say essentially "we know this isn't your image, use one you own".
- ecounysis 16y ago
  Does facebook have any legal liability if their advertisers use copyrighted images?
  - ig1 16y ago
    Interesting point, I don't think anyone's actually tested it in court. For Facebook photo sharing where they're merely a hosting site FB probably has the DMCA protection, but for their Ad Network it's potentially more ambiguous.

ig1 16y ago

I don't think Facebook hate small advertisers, I think they do (1) Care about ad quality (2) Care about short term gain. Facebook have really made a big drive to get rid of affiliate rebills, etc. as Facebook users view them as scams and they end up damaging Facebook's reputation. From my experience if you have a legitimate business it's unlikely that FB are going to reject your ads. Facebook want your money, the only reason they'll not want your money is if the ads will cost them more reputational damage then the money they bring in. I think their drive for short term gains has led them to some decisions which are damaging to small businesses (CPC pricing, no frequency capping), but thinking "they're out to get you" is just simple paranoia in my opinion.

BudVVeezer 16y ago

I am pretty sure "famous grey shirt girl" is actually Jose Lima's wife. http://digamma.net/btfwiki/Jose_Lima%27s_wife http://digamma.net/btfwiki/Jose_Lima%27s_wife

BudVVeezer 16y ago
In case you're wondering what this has to do with the topic at hand: Jose Lima was a well-known baseball player who died last year. His wife became an internet meme before he died, but I'm guessing someone at facebook decided to use her image was likely a legal violation, not to mention in poor taste.
michaelcampbell 16y ago
That looks nothing like the "grey shirt girl" to me. There's more to a person than a large bosom and blonde hair, and actually even those 2 features of the two pictures look radically different. But, I could very easily be wrong.

to 16y ago

facebook keep denying a mobile service i helped building with the reason it is a subscription service. but it is not. i keep mailing them and always get the same automated message that they do not allow mobile subscription services. they really just do not care. no wonder that 80% of their advertisers cloak their landingpages. their ad marketing team is obviously, and i got that confirmed from other people in the industry, unprofessional newbies who dont know how the industry works. sad but true.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

JeremyBanks 16y ago

So from what he's posted it appears that Mr. Markham thinks that ignorance of copyright status of an image means that he can do what he wants with it; when it actually means the complete opposite. That casts sufficient doubt on the actual reasons behind what he's writing about that the posts loses any value, except to promote his website. The title of this post even reads like a linkbait ad you'd see on Facebook; quite a turn-off.

tokenadult 16y ago

I see from a link via RiderOfGiraffes http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1737491 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1737491 that TinEye has been discussed here on HN plenty of times before. I have recently been using TinEye http://www.tineye.com/ http://www.tineye.com/ to trace the provenance of images I see on the Web. (I learned about TinEye, in fact, from an MIT alumnus who was wondering about whether a Facebook ad image was computer-generated or a photograph of an actual person. The image is a photograph of a famous model.) Whatever exactly it is that Facebook is doing to enforce its policies, it plainly has technical means for identifying images that duplicate other images, and then some set of policies for resolving doubts in doubtful cases into decisions about whether or not an advertiser can use a particular image. Just stay within the rules, and all should be okay.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Yep, TinEye was used here, as indicated in the comments over on the blog. Didn't help for this particular person, and I got four emails this morning all claiming she was a different person. It's a great tool. Highly recommended. Anybody posting images should use it. The problem is what to do when you get a negative result. If Facebook wants to start requiring paperwork for every little 160 x 120 ad image that's fine with me: I'm a photographer and would love taking a weekend and shooting some stuff. But I'm not sure that a negative result on a Google or TinEye search is indicative that copyrights are being violated. If it is, there's a hell of a lot of material on the web (and Facebook) that needs to be removed. As indicated in the article, it's not whatever the rules are or aren't: it's the selective enforcement that can drive folks nuts.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- xsmasher 16y ago
  >The problem is what to do when you get a negative result. That's easy; if you don't know who made the image, then chances are you don't have the right to use that image. You find a new image that you do have rights to. You don't assume that the image has no owner just because you can't find the owner.