[interested_observer]

t’s long been known that Facebook strips the metadata from photographs and other images that are uploaded. I’ve never seen an official answer from Facebook as to why they do this, but the leading theory seems to be one of privacy. With 136,000 images being uploaded to Facebook every single minute, that’s a lot of potential GPS and other private information. But it does also total up to a lot of potentially wasted storage space, too.

• German photographer sues Facebook over image metadata stripping and wins - DIY Photography

Set up your Copyright tags in your camera and shoot some images. Spend $50 and register the images with the US Copyright Office. Then upload them to Facebook, with Facebook stripping all the EXIF data, including the Copyright data. Then you can sue Facebook for $2500 and go to $25,000 (per image?) in addition to attorneys' fees and any damages for the infringement.

• Photo Attorney: Watermarks Can Be Music To Your Ears

[normhead]

Unless you agree in Facebook's TOS to a waiver of your CMI rights, which is doubtlessly in there and is completely enforceable under U.S. law. Also, if you upload it yourself knowing that the CMI will be stripped, any suit you try to pursue will be thrown out on bad faith/unclean hands grounds, anyway.

That would be really strange.

So if I walk into a bar, knowing that a guy will re=arrange my face if I call his mother a whore, and I do so, and he rearranges my face, he doesn't get charged with assault?

The fact that I know my action will cause you to commit an illegal act excuses you from performing an illegal act?
Personally I think the law should remove people from society, corporations included, wo either perform illegal acts, or manipulate the law so they can perform legal acts.

The corporate control of the legal system has reached new heights. Corporate rights are over the top, protection from the illegal actions are at an all time low. This is as corrupt as it gets.

It's funny how it's not OK to perform an illegal act, but it's OK to circumvent the law with a legal agreement. No legal agreement should be allowed to supersede the law. And it should be a crime to write such an agreement.

Same with nondisclosure agreements in safety cases. The public safety must be put before corporate well being. It should be illegal to write an agreement that enforces silence on issues related to public safety.

[UncleVanya]

The bar example would require that you sign a waiver to permit the fellow to hit you if you insult his mom. If you then turn around and try to sue him I think you would find it would be hard to do so.

[FantasticMrFox]

Unless you agree in Facebook's TOS to a waiver of your CMI rights, which is doubtlessly in there and is completely enforceable under U.S. law. Also, if you upload it yourself knowing that the CMI will be stripped, any suit you try to pursue will be thrown out on bad faith/unclean hands grounds, anyway.

Only cause of action I could see would be against someone else who uploaded your copyrighted image, since your first recourse under the law against Facebook would be a DMCA takedown request, since it's Safe-Harbored as an Internet SErvice Provider, since it hosts user's web content for them.

It only applies in Germany. In Germany Facebook has to operate under German law, and TOS are void if they violate standing law.

[normhead]

It only applies in Germany. In Germany Facebook has to operate under German law, and TOS are void if they violate standing law.

Smart people those Germans.

[normhead]

Civilly yes, but even then, it would still be a criminal offense in many jurisdictions, since unlike crimes like murder or arson, under the common law definition of battery* there is no intent requirement to the criminal offense, and only under certain highly regulated circumstances can you batter someone with their permission and escape criminal liability. That's why licensed prize fights are legal, but "Fight Club" underground boxing is not, and participants in the latter can be criminally charged for battery. I even remember a few years back, Massachusetts was prosecuting willing participants in "S&M" clubs, who had signed waivers, under their battery statute to close these venues down. Another interesting comparison is the difference between U.S. on Canada's views as to whether playing licensed hockey waives battery liability if you try to hurt your opponent on the ice. In the U.S., it's waived. In Canada, it is not, which is why Dino Ciccarelli went to jail for hitting Luke Richardson over the head with a stick.

* "the use of force against another, resulting in harmful, offensive or sexual contact"

Which reminds me of that joke...

I was at the Gahdens watching a fight, when a hockey game broke out.

[Lowell Goudge]

That would be really strange.

So if I walk into a bar, knowing that a guy will re=arrange my face if I call his mother a whore, and I do so, and he rearranges my face, he doesn't get charged with assault?

The fact that I know my action will cause you to commit an illegal act excuses you from performing an illegal act?
Personally I think the law should remove people from society, corporations included, wo either perform illegal acts, or manipulate the law so they can perform legal acts.

The corporate control of the legal system has reached new heights. Corporate rights are over the top, protection from the illegal actions are at an all time low. This is as corrupt as it gets.

It's funny how it's not OK to perform an illegal act, but it's OK to circumvent the law with a legal agreement. No legal agreement should be allowed to supersede the law. And it should be a crime to write such an agreement.

Same with nondisclosure agreements in safety cases. The public safety must be put before corporate well being. It should be illegal to write an agreement that enforces silence on issues related to public safety.

Norm

The issue with contracts and waiver of rights is a well established principle,min fact in contract law, one of the enforcing rules is that a contract may NOT violate criminal laws. Copyright is not part of the criminal code, therefore it can and is often waived in completely legal contracts.

[roflwaffle]

Unless you agree in Facebook's TOS to a waiver of your CMI rights, which is doubtlessly in there and is completely enforceable under U.S. law. Also, if you upload it yourself knowing that the CMI will be stripped, any suit you try to pursue will be thrown out on bad faith/unclean hands grounds, anyway.

Only cause of action I could see would be against someone else who uploaded your copyrighted image, since your first recourse under the law against Facebook would be a DMCA takedown request, since it's Safe-Harbored as an Internet SErvice Provider, since it hosts user's web content for them.

Could someone modify FB's TOS to not waive their CMI rights, provide notice of this change to FB, and assuming FB let them continue to use service after some reasonable amount of time, have cause if/when FB stripped out the EXIF data from copywritten images?

[Fenwoodian]

Does anyone know if Flickr also strips the exif and copyright information from photos that many of us upload there?

I don't believe that I even bothered to read the Flickr upload agreement, maybe I should to see if by uploading I'm agreeing to give Flickr the right to stip my metadata.

[Clou]

The last time I checked, flickr stripped the Exif data from the reduced-size versions generated from the uploaded image.
From my point of view they should at least keep the IPTC data...

[photolady95]

flickr stripped the Exif data from the reduced-size versions generated from the uploaded image.

Under my photos on flickr, you can see the meta data (EXIF). So I'm not sure where you see what you're saying.

[boriscleto]

Under my photos on flickr, you can see the meta data (EXIF). So I'm not sure where you see what you're saying.

Only the full size version retains the EXIF in the file itself. If you download any version of the photo other than Original size it won't have any EXIF.

[photolady95]

Only the full size version retains the EXIF in the file itself. If you download any version of the photo other than Original size it won't have any EXIF.

I never checked on that part since my posting them here, they link back to Flickr, I just assumed (bad thinking) that the EXIF was in all size photos. Thanks for that boriscleto.

[roflwaffle]

You'd be hard pressed to prove that there was new consideration being attached to the contract modification, so in most jurisdictions (at least in the US), no. The other issue would be proving you'd provide actual effective notice, which would in this case likely require at minimum a certified, notarized, registered letter to FB's legal department with a response acknowledging its receipt, contacts, and acquiescence to the new terms.

Thanks for the reply! This is very interesting. Does the requirement for new consideration imply that any changes FB had made to their TOS are invalid if there was no new consideration for their users? Also, is there a particular reason the acquiescence needs to be explicit? Most TOS updates I see have something along the lines of "if you continue to use our service you agree to these new terms". Couldn't the user do the same thing ("if you continue to provide me service" ...)?

[Clou]

It only applies in Germany. In Germany Facebook has to operate under German law, and TOS are void if they violate standing law.

Smart people those Germans.

The basic idea behind this rule is IMHO pretty much common sense.
I am not a lawyer (no legal advice, you are encouraged to do your own research or ask a professional), but here are some words that should help to understand:
A TOS that consists of several pages of legalese is not something that Joe Q. Public will comprehend, so local (German) law overrules clauses that are not compliant.
Many TOS do not contain a severability clause which renders them invalid in the case that any part of the TOS is against the law (at least in Germany).