4 ms·
This is pretty clear copyright infringement. Whoever took the picture owns the copyright. Being a public figure would matter if this were a first amendment fre
by thinkcomp 15y ago
This is pretty clear copyright infringement. Whoever took the picture owns the copyright.
Being a public figure would matter if this were a first amendment free speech issue, but it's not. It's just a plain violation of the Lanham Act, both due to the copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq) and because of the false advertising claim (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B)) you could make because of the impression that the person endorses the ad (but I'm not a lawyer, for the record). So no, it's not legal, and illegal acts should not be allowed by any company's terms of service.
It's also ironic given how Facebook got its start (i.e. Facemash), which was by misusing photos copyrighted by Harvard.
- w1ntermute 15y agoBut doesn't Facebook claim ownership of the copyright if you upload a photo to its site?
- thinkcomp 15y agoI don't know. But it doesn't matter. It's an AppSumo ad.
- kmavm 15y agoNo. https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=12008 https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=12008 http://www.quora.com/Who-owns-the-photos-I-put-on-Facebook http://www.quora.com/Who-owns-the-photos-I-put-on-Facebook
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- troels 15y agoHow could they? He says clearly that the copyright is held by a photographer - not him self.
- darklajid 15y agoIgnoring the other answers about the legal aspect: He _didn't_ upload that picture to Facebook anyway. The article states, that this was the cover picture of one of his books.
- edanm 15y agoHe doesn't say that it wasn't uploaded to Facebook, he says it wasn't a profile picture. I would think this was a nitpick, except he specifically said "not a profile picture" so my guess is he did upload it to Facebook.