With regards to Target, Walmart and other large print resources, it is my understanding most will NOT print a photo that has imbedded copyright metadata without release. One can imbed such information before uploading to FB, but unfortunately with the ability to modify such metadata, I can only offer these words.

CAVEOT EMPTOR

I still believe that watermarking is a poor choice when you’re presenting your work online. The more efficient the watermarking is, the more it detracts from the image.

I believe restricting the resolution of the artwork is a better, but not perfect, solution.

I haven’t tried to pass myself off as some be-all-end-all authority, and I fail to see what watermarking has to do with “serious” photography. I have my opinion, you have your opinion, and everyone else gets to make up their own mind.

I hope they choose to not watermark.

As a full-time professional photographer, I made the choice a while ago, not to publish most of my images on Facebook. Not in my personal page, not on my business page.

The problem with that is, so many people use Facebook as a shopping site now as well, if you’re a photographer whose business page has no images, you’re potentially losing out on a considerable amount of client interest.

So the simple solution of ‘just don’t post photos at all’ isn’t really an answer. It’s unfortunate, but Facebook is currently such a behemoth, if you’re not posting interesting, visual and relevant content on your business page, you will lose out on work.

After much frustrated thought on the matter, I too concluded that the only workable solution was to only upload low-res, watermarked images. I’m sorry to say that it did indeed make a difference for the better in regard to the number of inquiries I receive.

However, I choose to hope that one day sooner than later, online privacy policies will be forced by law to change. And when that happens, all social networking sites and all related applications will be subject to those same laws.

It’s good to have a dream to distract you from being trapped between that rock and that hard place!

(oh yeah, WalMart don’t do decent prints FULLSTOP!)

I opened up an image from Facebook in PS and resized it to a decent print resolution (360ppi) and it had a print size of about 1.1″ x 1.5″ !!!

The fact of the matter is, if you care for the copyright of your images, don’t put them on Facebook. I believe they have the rights to use your images for whatever purpose they want, including giving them to a third party. I even think, although I’m not currently versed on this matter, that if your image is copyright embeded, they still have the right to use it under the Facebook user agreement.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Back to the point: A watermark is the sign of a hack for me, and with the possible exception of the Magnum website, I haven’t seen any photographers I rate use extensive watermarking.

To each his own, but I strongly recommend using lowres, unwatermarked versions online, instead of slapping a graphic on your work that detracts from the impact of the photography.

Sorry you have an elitest attitude. There’s nothing wrong with watermarking. I recommend it. Feel free to call me trite and banal. My clients love my work and they pay for it because watermarks, like locks, keep honest people honest.

Has nothing to do with watermarking!

Reason number 123,321 why you shouldn’t worry about some guy calling you names on the Internet. They typically don’t even know what insult they are hurling :)

Facebook changes their policies & application services often enough, that it’s in the best interest of any professional posting online to review their security settings on a regular basis.

You are correct, tagged photos & general fan pages do not show up as albums, and therefore are not listed with the Facebook Connect option I demonstrated in the video.

- A.J.

Just as legally if someone tags you on facebook to “OPT OUT” you have to untag yourself in the image.. When you upload you certify you have the rights to the image and you are avoiding copyright..

Don’t you ever read the licensing for using these services ? I believe myself it’s completely fair.. Simply ask, otherwise it’s fair game just like any other public picture is on the media..

If you want real change make congress change privacy “Opt In” and “Opt Out” rules… SERIOUSLY..

Thanks for the tip. Have you tried these settings? It looks like that might make your images invisible to all applications and Websites. That would work. I just wonder if there are any unintended side-effects to that choice?

Also, my friend who is very web savvy posted this as a way to not have to chase all the companies and applications individually. Not exactly one click.. but a better alternative to turning them all off.

In the … upper right-hand corner, click on “Account” > “Privacy Settings”. Scroll down to the bottom and click on “Applications and Websites”. Across from “Info accessible through your friends”, click “Edit Settings”. Deselect “My photos” and “Photos and videos I’m tagged in”. Click “Save Changes” and you’re done.

Without being pedantic- my concern/point is that IF your images are NOT registered, and ARE copied/printed off of FB, or any other social media site, and are then used in a commercial manner (most likely online/web use, given the usual resolution) and you choose to ‘take them to court’ the potential damage award you MAY be granted by a judge WILL be nominal, at best, UNLESS you’re images ARE registered.

So sure, you can ‘take them to court’, however it will be out of your own pocket. IF they are registered and infringed the vast majority of IP Counsel will take the case on (sometimes on contingency) because they know that if the Court finds against the infringer the damage award includes litigation costs for the infringed party. That’s all I’m saying. You can take anyone to Court, but at $350.00 an hour (15 hour minimum) you’ll have to think long and hard if it’s worth it. Without registration paperwork that is.

Let’s not forget this is only an issue for people who need to manage the rights to their images (i.e., photographers).

I’m sure there are a lot of Facebook users who find this feature very useful. A friend/relative in Oregon posts pictures of their new baby, I can make prints and pick them up at a Wal-Mart in Massachusetts in a couple of hours. That’s very easy and convenient.

The issue here is this appears to be yet another example where Facebook is making managing privacy settings deliberately difficult. If you could, with one click in your privacy settings, turn this feature off it wouldn’t be a big issue. But nooooo. You have to go find every app that offers this feature and individually opt out. Then you have to be forever vigilant for any new apps that might offer this feature.