MSN Selling Users' Images as Merchandise

TK421 writes "From this week's ResearchBuzz: "Sometime over a year ago, Yahoo bought GeoCities and changed the user agreement to something that seemed to remove a lot of the GeoCities users' intellectual property rights. At the time, Yahoo assured everyone they wouldn't inappropriately use content from GeoCities, but changed the user agreement under pressure. Now Mercury Center is reporting that folks who belong to the MSN Web communities are susceptible to having their pictures copied from community sites and put on merchandise sold by Microsoft and its partners.""

Comments

Is it really that bad?

[Chacham]

Is it really that bad? Free pages and storage. They're not taking away anything from you, just saying what you put here is public. It is true to Yahoo's non-caring for anybody's rights, but it was in the license agreement. Is it really wrong per se?

Re:Is it really that bad?

[Oztun]

There not just saying what you put there is public. They are making money off other peoples property. If the law says that the person taking the photos owns the copyright then they should be paying them. Not that I agree or disagree with it but this is straight from the article:

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, copyright of an image is automatically owned by the creator at the time it's created.

Re:Is it really that bad?

[Stormie]

They are making money off other peoples property.

Yep. But they spell out in the Terms Of Use that if you upload your property to MSN, they may distribute it, reproduce it, etc., and "no compensation will be paid" to you.

If the law says that the person taking the photos owns the copyright then they should be paying them.

The person who takes the photos owns the copyright. The person who owns the copyright gives Microsoft the right to reproduce the photo without paying compensation. Microsoft does so. Where's the harm?

OK, I'll be honest - I think this is totally unacceptable behaviour. But since it seems to be legal, the obvious solution is not to complain, but to move your damn photos onto some web space that you're paying for, rather than some free web space that comes with odious terms of use.

Re:Is it really that bad?

[CaptainCap]

Read the article instead of trying to be first post. If you have copyright material, then MS just trusts that the buyer is the copyright owner. MS doesn't trust you or me for anything, but if you are giving them $$$ for images, then they trust that you are the owner. Ha! I've never used these photo sites because I read the weasel words in their agreements and didn't trust that they would leave my photos alone.

Re:Is it really that bad?

[Chacham]

I did read the article, or rather, I skimmed it. Between that and the way I read the post here, I misread. It was a mistake. Either way, I still hold by the basic principle.

Re:Is it really that bad?

[eris_crow]

But since it seems to be legal, the obvious solution is not to complain, but to move your damn photos onto some web space that you're paying for, rather than some free web space that comes with odious terms of use.

First off, that which is legal, is not neccessarily ethical. This is another case of Microsoft unethically violating the trust their users have placed in them. When I read through the Terms of Use just now I interpreted them as an attempt by Microsoft to protect themselves from irate users who try to sue them claiming that "distributing" the photos and other items through MSN violates copyright. Of course, such a lawsuit would be falacious, but in these litigious times, who can blame even Microsoft for trying to protect themselves.

The problem is that the wording of the Terms of Use is broad enough to allow Microsoft to sell the photos, and this is the course of action they have chosen. By doing this they violate people's reasonable expectation to control their own works.

Most people don't expect this kind of behavior, even when it is legal. If Microsoft wanted to profit from the photos, then (ethically, not legally) they should have explicitly written into their usage agreement that Microsoft reserved the right to republished in other media the content uploaded to MSN.

As for the statement that the "obvious" solution is to move rather than complain, I have to respond that in an ostensibly democratic and capatalistic society, the "obvious" solution is twofold:

1 - Complain to Microsoft. If they don't change their policy to meet the customer's needs, then move to a different service.

2 - Complain to your CongressCritter. Just because something is legal, that doesn't mean it has to be legal, or even that it should be. Let your representatives know that you find this kind of action to be disturbing and that "there oughta be a law". Maybe there will be a law passed, and maybe there won't, but if you don't at least try to make the world better, then that's when you really shouldn't complain.

Re:Is it really that bad?

[PhilHibbs]

they spell out in the Terms Of Use that if you upload your property to MSN, they may distribute it, reproduce it, etc., and "no compensation will be paid" to you.

So if I upload a picture that I didn't take, then they could be sued for handling stolen goods!

They can't use images of people.

[Siqnal 11]

Even if you hold the copyright, you cannot use pictures in advertising (e.g., an on-line product brochure or anything else that is selling) without getting a model release from any person whose image is recognizable in the photo.

They might also have problems if an image contains a recognizable physical property, e.g., Disneyland. One of the reasons advertisers pay $1000+ for images from stock agencies is that those agencies have generally already gotten the relevant releases.

--

Re:They can't use images of people.

[Stormie]

Even if you hold the copyright, you cannot use pictures in advertising (e.g., an on-line product brochure or anything else that is selling) without getting a model release from any person whose image is recognizable in the photo.

Excellent, now there's a way for anyone who's pissed off to fight this one. Take a picture of a friend, stick it on the page, get a second friend to order a coffee cup with the picture on it, and let the lawsuits commence! :-)

(and move your pictures off MSN onto some paid-for web space)

MSN motto

[emag]

What content do you want sold today?

Okay, never having been tempted (much) by any of these free web hosting services, I'm not too familiar with their terms of service. But, if it's stated in there, and people still uploaded content, then yeah, it stinks to high heaven, but <sigh> they're within their rights to use it the way they see fit.

MSN Web communities weren't notified in advance of the service, which appears as a small ``buy products'' button next to the images. But MSN is advising users who don't like the feature to make their communities private by restricting membership to a select group to or take the images off the site altogether.

Of course, if the users don't like it, there's nothing stopping them from moving to another service, even one they might have to pay for. At least then there might be more of an assurance that they have more control over their content.

I still think it stinks though that these web communities weren't at least given some kind of warning that this would be going into effect.

--

Money.

[IgKnight]

I have one thing to say.
Why can they make money off of us by selling our pictures, or persinal information, but we cannot copy their products and make money that way?
I know that they spent time and money to make the products, but our parents spent time and money on us!

Re:What about copyrighted imagery ?

[billcopc]

What happens if a certain painter or professional photographer decides to put up his own copyrighted works for display ? It then becomes illegal for Microsoft (or anyone besides the artist) to redistribute that content, else they open up to a delicious onslaught of one-way lawsuits. Would such content-creators be now required to post a legal license on their MSN Community's welcome page before letting anyone peek at their images ? Very touchy matter IMHO.

Re:Oh but it's for a good reason

[SanLouBlues]

I never meant unfair. I meant stupid. I don't develop film either, now that digital cameras are available. And when developing film the reason to pay would be that most people don't have darkrooms at home and don't want to. But if I have a printer, MS can't produce a much better picture from a file with a set resolution. Sure the color might be better, and it might be glossy which is nifty, and I might pay for that (the glossiness and vibrant color) as MS would then be the easiest channel available to me to get that extra quality that, but if I have a decent printer which can print good color on glossy paper it's stupid. Providing a service and charging for it isn't unreasonable, but if I don't need it it is stupid. Like paying for Windows when Linux is available.

Oh but it's for a good reason

[SanLouBlues]

Microsoft argues the service is intended to help people reprint images they own, such as photographs of their relatives from online family albums.
Why would they charge people for something they already own anyways??? If I "own" a picture, I don't need MS to print it. Sounds like a scam targeted at old people who might just want a picture of their grandson, but don't know any better. Alright MS!

Re:Oh but it's for a good reason

[Blue Weirdo]

From reading the article, it sounds like you can go in an have an image reprinted on some merchandise, say you wanted a coffee mug with your kids pics or soemething. The problem is that anyone can order a coffee mug with your kids pics on it. Sounds like a good intentioned idea gone bad. What I don't get it that the companies involved claim theres no way they can verify a person placing an order is not the copyright holder. All you would have to do is limit the oders to the msn account that hosts the image.

Re:Oh but it's for a good reason

[lizrd]

Why would they charge people for something they already own anyways??? If I "own" a picture, I don't need MS to print it.

-----Begin Sarcasm-----
You're absolutely right it's totally unfair to charge for the reproduction of images for the benefit of the copyright holder. It's absolutely unfair that some heartless corporation charges me $7.50 to make prints of a roll of film. I own the copyright to the pictures on that film. They have no right what so ever to make a profit from my work! The same goes for Kinkos. They have no right to make a profit when I photocopy a report that I hold the copyright to. That's my intellectual property they can't charge me to make copies!
-----End Sarcasm-----

They are simply providing a reproduction service for images hosted on their server and charging for the service. Seems pretty resonable to me. If you happen to be a professional photographer and wish to sell your work to make a living this probably isn't a very acceptable arrangement. Don't use it. If you're just an average joe and want to post your pictures so that your friends can look at them you probably don't care.
_____________

MS vs. DMCA?

[atathert]

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, copyright of an image is automatically owned by the creator at the time it's created, noted Bart Lazar, a privacy and copyright attorney with Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson in Chicago.

Wouldn't it be an interesting turn of events if M$ was sued for copyright violations under the DMCA?

Geocities, Hmm?

[human bean]

Looking at Geocities' typical web content mix, does this make Microsoft the world's largest dealer of badly produced amateur porn?

Re:What about copyrighted imagery ?

[PhilHibbs]

What happens if a certain painter or professional photographer decides to put up his own copyrighted works for display ? It then becomes illegal for Microsoft (or anyone besides the artist) to redistribute that content, else they open up to a delicious onslaught of one-way lawsuits.They would be granting MSN permission by uploading. But if they got someone else to do it, who didn't have the right to grant copy rights, then they could sue MSN. The court might take a dim view of this if they found out that the artist was behind it all along. Especially if MSN has bigger lawyers.

And they say...

[John Sullivan]

I don't think anyone should be posting pictures they don't want anyone else to see or monetize - Phil Spencer, MSN

Quite! "I don't think anyone should be distributing software they don't want anyone else to copy or monetize." Or does copyright protection only apply when your company reaches the $1 million mark?