Sunday 15 May 2011

Your world - anyone's world

 I think this subject of who owns your on line images is so interesting. For someone who does not have an online profile, or digital footprint (except when I am required to, in order to complete my degree) this kind of debate validates my decision.

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/the-morning-show/video/-/watch/25214029/photo-sharing-sites-sell-your-pics/

It is these kind of issues that I think have not yet been answered by those who provide such sites. Is it to be a case in the future that you could see your image advertising a product that you would rather not have any connection to, because an advertising company bought your image from an online service. Or worse, could they have purchased pictures of your children or grand-kids, that you placed on line to show what you did on holidays. Not sure some people get the privacy issue, that once you post something online it is no longer yours.

In one of my previous lives I did some work as a travel writer, and taking pictures to be published in newspapers and magazines was always a nightmare as you had to get written permission by those in the images before they were published. You always hunted for the perfect shot when traveling without people, because of the legalities connected to anyone who may appear in an image. We all have the right to say how pictures of us can be used, it is a privacy right. But when you sign this right away, to post pictures of yourself on line - I wonder where it is going to lead.

At the moment it seems fun to show the world what you got up to on the weekend, but when you see your face on a 3 metre high billboard advertising a haemorrhoid cream - I'm not sure it is going to be quite as much fun. And to be honest, you ticked the box that says you have no right over how your image is used.
Remember - "You are not Facebook's customer. You are the PRODUCT that they SELL to the real customers- advertisers." Steve Greenberg.
We are yet to hear any misuse of images yet, but as the link shows, it may just be beginning. And legally you don't have any come back. Even if they changed the terms of contract from now on, they would have enough images now to last decades - your images.

6 comments:

  1. Well done Jen! You have put forward some points I hadn't even thought of! Yeek I would hate to see my image advertising a haemorrhoid cream! (had a giggle when I read that line!)

    It is scary to know companies could do that with our images.How do we know they haven't already? We can't see all the advertising, etc that is out there and for all we know our images could be used overseas where we never see them.

    The knowledge that we are not Facebook's customer is no surprise to me as how can we be, we aren't paying for FB like we pay for our internet use. Anyone who thinks they are is living in cyber world and not the real world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, the haemorrhoid cream comment was funny :)
    It is scary how companies are using our images for their own purposes. I read in the papers recently that phones installed with Google map allow others to track your whereabouts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Jennie,

    The below article that was published in the SMH online today is further support to your argument regarding privacy and continues to raise questions about image ownership.

    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/facebook-trade-in-female-images-20110517-1erfu.html

    "The Brocial Group" on Facebook has been described as a "Men's Only" group where there are pictures of scantily clad women to look at. One of the rules of the group is that members must upload images of girls which "reveal a little too much" and members are removed from the group if they fail to post an image within a week (!!!!!). This means that men are going through their female friends' profiles to find photos of them in bikinis and underwear and then posting those pictures to the group for other men to view.

    It is disturbing, disgusting and perverted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jennie, there have been numerous stories about Facebook images being inappropriately used - here's a famous one from back in 2009: http://blog.wearekeystone.com/facebook-pictures-used-in-advertising/

    And Kate, you'll be pleased to know that the Brocial Group has now been pulled by FB (as it should be!):
    http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/facebook-pulls-brocial-network-20110519-1eu9s.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. I should add that, as the link to the first FB story above indicates, this particular case wasn't FB's fault. However, it illustrates the more general problem of the circulation of millions of personal images online.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mark, at least the lady in your story saw the funny side of it, but it does highlight the issues. Can't help but think there is going to be a lot more issues arise in the future with misuse of images. Yes they took down the brocial groups but was that just because the media got hold of it, are there other such groups operating with the same amount of secrecy?

    ReplyDelete