3 ms·

> But I'm not sure that a negative result on a Google or TinEye search is indicative that copyrights are being violated. Be sure. Since 1952 copyright has been

> But I'm not sure that a negative result on a Google or TinEye search is indicative that copyrights are being violated. Be sure. Since 1952 copyright has been assigned by default to the creator of the content, and unauthorized use is a violation of that right, except... > If it is, there's a hell of a lot of material on the web (and Facebook) that needs to be removed. ...that it can be argued that much of the memeish usage of images falls within the "fair use" or "fair dealing" provisions of the laws. Using it in a commercial advertisement like you intended to does not and would be illegal. EDIT: IANAL but I like to have some idea of the law before using other people's content.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I just want to be clear that this was a $5 experiment that I intended to share, post, and blog about for purposes of learning about Facebook advertising. I'm not claiming fair use, simply saying that, for the amount of money involved, I was happy with doing as much diligence as I could and then be willing to remove the ad if it was in error. And as far as I know, copyright had nothing to do with the ad being rejected. My theory as expressed in the article was that it was the effectiveness of the picture, not copyright, that caused the problem. After all, I got the image from reading an article about posting ads on Facebook. In that article it showed several FB ads with this image on it. I thought that if the article was about posting ads, and this image was included, then there was some implied warranty. Like I said, I'm not trying to make excuses, simply explain. At the time I wasn't too terribly interested in the providence of the image, simply learning how all the pieces come together for an intended effect. Having said that, I'm perfectly happy with using the image in a blog article about the image itself -- if that's not fair use I don't know what is. As of right this minute, none of us know who this person is or what kinds of protections are involved. Since I have received multiple claims to know who she is, and since they are all different people, I believe it is reasonable to expect that the image is of insufficient resolution as to be identifying of any one particular person. So -- unless something changes -- we can never really know, at least in the fashion you indicate. There is a huge amount of material on the web that falls into this area, and a lot of murky edge cases. For instance, FB thinks it is okay to post the same image on my website's fan page, even though FB runs ads on those pages? FB can use the image for it's commercial purposes but I can't use it for mine? All those "memeish of images" you refer to -- much of it on FB feeds -- isn't an issue for FB for purposes of placing their own ads? There seems to be some serious inconsistencies here. I'm probably in error, so I apologize to whomever I might have offended. But I am not happy at all that I understand the current state of things to the degree necessary. I don't think anybody does -- I think at the end of the day it's a personal evaluation of risk. I'm also not happy that I wouldn't inadvertently do the same thing again -- that I'm not, in fact, doing it right now, by sharing funny pictures I find with my friends on FB. That's really screwed up. I could argue on and on about this -- but I have no desire to do so, or to use the image in an ad. I strongly feel that some folks would have taken that risk, and that it is a reasonable decision to make, and it bothers me that so many people would let their judgment of what's too much risk for them be the rule for everybody else.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I just want to be clear that this was a $5 experiment that I intended to share, post, and blog about for purposes of learning about Facebook advertising. I'm not claiming fair use, simply saying that, for the amount of money involved, I was happy with doing as much diligence as I could and then be willing to remove the ad if it was in error. And as far as I know, copyright had nothing to do with the ad being rejected. My theory as expressed in the article was that it was the effectiveness of the picture, not copyright, that caused the problem. After all, I got the image from reading an article about posting ads on Facebook. In that article it showed several FB ads with this image on it. I thought that if the article was about posting ads, and this image was included, then there was some implied warranty. Like I said, I'm not trying to make excuses, simply explain. At the time I wasn't too terribly interested in the providence of the image, simply learning how all the pieces come together for an intended effect. Having said that, I'm perfectly happy with using the image in a blog article about the image itself -- if that's not fair use I don't know what is. As of right this minute, none of us know who this person is or what kinds of protections are involved. Since I have received multiple claims to know who she is, and since they are all different people, I believe it is reasonable to expect that the image is of insufficient resolution as to be identifying of any one particular person. So -- unless something changes -- we can never really know, at least in the fashion you indicate. There is a huge amount of material on the web that falls into this area, and a lot of murky edge cases. For instance, FB thinks it is okay to post the same image on my website's fan page, even though FB runs ads on those pages? FB can use the image for it's commercial purposes but I can't use it for mine? All those "memeish of images" you refer to -- much of it on FB feeds -- isn't an issue for FB for purposes of placing their own ads? There seems to be some serious inconsistencies here. I'm probably in error, so I apologize to whomever I might have offended. But I am not happy at all that I understand the current state of things to the degree necessary. I don't think anybody does -- I think at the end of the day it's a personal evaluation of risk. I'm also not happy that I wouldn't inadvertently do the same thing again -- that I'm not, in fact, doing it right now, by sharing funny pictures I find with my friends on FB. That's really screwed up. I could argue on and on about this -- but I have no desire to do so, or to use the image in an ad. I strongly feel that some folks would have taken that risk, and that it is a reasonable decision to make, and it bothers me that so many people would let their judgment of what's too much risk for them be the rule for everybody else.