6 ms·

Pro photos cost a lot of money to use and FB just gets them for free. Why? Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which

Pro photos cost a lot of money to use and FB just gets them for free. Why? Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too.

seryoiupfurds 2y ago
> Pro photos cost a lot of money to use and FB just gets them for free. Why? a) Because the photographer uploaded it, granting a license to display it under the TOS b) Because someone else uploaded it without permission and Facebook is protected by DMCA safe harbor provisions so long as they remove it upon request > Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too. Lots of things are expensive without creating some obligation for an unrelated third party to pay you for it.
- hackerbeat 2y ago
  FB should still not get all these things for free.
  - seryoiupfurds 2y ago
    So Facebook should be obliged to pay you every time you upload a photo? Anyone with a camera will be a millionaire by tomorrow morning. And the government did choose to require Facebook to pay for the news. Facebook decided the price wasn't worth it, so now they no longer allow news on their platform. They aren't getting anything for free. Fair and square.
    - Eisenstein 2y ago
      Responding to 'it seems fair to ask for treatment that other media authors get' with 'lets forget all nuance and adopt the most extreme position one could take' by comparing people who sell their work for a living with people who post pictures of themselves for attention is not helpful and does not make your point stronger.
      - Spivak 2y ago
        Facebook doesn't get these things for free. Facebook is no more able to commit copyright infringement than you are. There's no difference between amateur and professional photographers under the law. In both cases it's a photo uploaded to Facebook by someone who owns the copyright on it. When you upload a photo to Facebook you grant them a license to display it when people see your post. They're not Getty, you're not selling your photo to them. Like I'm not sure where the disconnect it, do you wish Facebook had a monetization scheme like YouTube? Because that's entirely voluntary. For "pirated" content monetization is a voluntary offering that serves as an alternative to issuing a takedown request.
        Eisenstein 2y ago
        I don't wish anything. I am telling you that resorting to comparisons which destroy the nuance of life and human actions is detrimental to conversations and that you should stop doing that because it doesn't make you right, it makes you an agitator.
        Sirizarry 2y ago
        Where are they wrong?
        Eisenstein 2y ago
        They didn't make any factual statements in the comment I initially replied to.
      - hackerbeat 2y ago
        Yeah, he's just twisting the facts to make a point. Still no comment on why news corps have to pay for pics and content when FB gets it all for free.

Pro photos cost a lot of money to use and FB just gets them for free. Why? Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too.

seryoiupfurds 2y ago

> Pro photos cost a lot of money to use and FB just gets them for free. Why? a) Because the photographer uploaded it, granting a license to display it under the TOS b) Because someone else uploaded it without permission and Facebook is protected by DMCA safe harbor provisions so long as they remove it upon request > Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too. Lots of things are expensive without creating some obligation for an unrelated third party to pay you for it.

hackerbeat 2y ago
FB should still not get all these things for free.
- seryoiupfurds 2y ago
  So Facebook should be obliged to pay you every time you upload a photo? Anyone with a camera will be a millionaire by tomorrow morning. And the government did choose to require Facebook to pay for the news. Facebook decided the price wasn't worth it, so now they no longer allow news on their platform. They aren't getting anything for free. Fair and square.
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    Responding to 'it seems fair to ask for treatment that other media authors get' with 'lets forget all nuance and adopt the most extreme position one could take' by comparing people who sell their work for a living with people who post pictures of themselves for attention is not helpful and does not make your point stronger.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      Facebook doesn't get these things for free. Facebook is no more able to commit copyright infringement than you are. There's no difference between amateur and professional photographers under the law. In both cases it's a photo uploaded to Facebook by someone who owns the copyright on it. When you upload a photo to Facebook you grant them a license to display it when people see your post. They're not Getty, you're not selling your photo to them. Like I'm not sure where the disconnect it, do you wish Facebook had a monetization scheme like YouTube? Because that's entirely voluntary. For "pirated" content monetization is a voluntary offering that serves as an alternative to issuing a takedown request.
      - Eisenstein 2y ago
        I don't wish anything. I am telling you that resorting to comparisons which destroy the nuance of life and human actions is detrimental to conversations and that you should stop doing that because it doesn't make you right, it makes you an agitator.
        Sirizarry 2y ago
        Where are they wrong?
        Eisenstein 2y ago
        They didn't make any factual statements in the comment I initially replied to.
    - hackerbeat 2y ago
      Yeah, he's just twisting the facts to make a point. Still no comment on why news corps have to pay for pics and content when FB gets it all for free.