While I already have my own website along with a shopping cart feature, I received an email from FAA about joining them to market my photos through my Facebook page.
I just received it last night, so I haven't had time to dig into it other than reading a review of it in Digital Imaging, where their general service (free website, POD, printing, customer service, quality of art they promot, etc.--not the new Facebook version) was panned by a small percentage and seemingly praised by more.
POD has its ups and downs, who knows if any sales will be generated, etc. etc. But I'd love to offer people on Facebook the opportunity to purchase photos without leaving FB to go to my site.
FAA's basic service is free, and the POD part comes in at only $30 a YEAR. Now I know they are collecting $30 from thousands of people, but who cares if they deliver what is promised. I would like to know if anyone has had any experience with them specifically.
I like Fine Art America ! They have a great presentation & several platforms to present work including the FB application. However, the most notable issue is the rise in google image rankings for images I have on FAA.
Sorry I'm just getting back on this. Troup, while I've read some supposed horror stories about photos on FB in general, now I would really like to know of a specific occurrence if someone can do that. I don't doubt it, I mean even my "FB Friends" "borrow" my images for computer wallpaper/screen savers. As for anyone printing, I would be especially POd and follow up, if there was anyway to tell. But I'm not sure FB is any easier to steal from than say, Flickr or anywhere else. ?? In general, Digimarc is an interesting idea--has anyone used it?? I'm about ready to try it.
And John, thanks for the info on FAA. I bit the bullet and went for the Print on Demand option. I only have four or five photos up right now. But with the FB issue, they ask that they be allowed to access your FB content, contacts, post updates, etc. at ANY time?? That's a bit frightening so I've stayed away from it.
Posted by Larry Darnell on October 15, 2010 at 8:31 PM
I've had work on FAA for a couple of years. I had posted one image for about a year and forgot about it. When I checked it out, it had a couple thousand hits, so I figured they had traffic... Since then I've posted a few hundred images, sold some, had thousands of hits - enough to let me know my work is 'attractive' and too expensive or not worth buying based on lots of lookie-loos, or there aren't that many buyers or...who knows what??? I've ordered cards, which are surprisingly good and reasonably priced in qty. Not yet ordered any printing, but that will help me determine whether to buy a large format printer or have them do it. The yearly cost seems more than reasonable for the entertainment factor, at least.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Troup and Bill - I believe the issue with Facebook is how their terms of use are written. It's not that they've actually taken images and sold/used them without permission. Here is the actual statement from Facebook's terms :
For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos ("IP content"), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook ("IP License"). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
So yeah, that opens things up for abuse, but it's not clear that they could let you share things the way they do if they didn't have some kind of blanket statement like this. I would say that if you're worried, don't use Facebook. I haven't looked at it beyond the basic terms here though.
Posted by Bill Maile on October 16, 2010 at 9:22 AM
Thank you gentlemen!! Larry, I bit the bullet and now have about 25 things up on FAA. And I did the FB option. So far, I have no complaints and they have a beautiful, well thought out website and applications. The problem I see may be the pricing. With our markup, and their printing costs, it looks like a lot of $$ to regular folk I think. I've gotten lots of views, a few comments, but no sales yet.
David, thanks for that info. FB, I don't know. I still post images on there as a way to show my friends and "fans" what I'm doing. I know when I tested and tried to copy my images, I can do it but at a very small image size. Not sure if someone with more technical savvy can do more though.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 16, 2010 at 4:24 PM
I can do it but at a very small image size
Bill - The potential issue isn't people copying images off of Facebook. I believe what's shown on the web pages is a low res version, just like what you'd upload to NPN. So you're right, you can only get low res.
The actual issue is that Facebook could potentially sell your image since the terms of service indicate those types of rights (potentially). And since you may be uploading a high res version, which Facebook down-sizes for display, they may even have access to a larger version. As far as I know this has never actually happened, and Facebook has claiimed that the clause in the terms is to allow them to reproduce the images in, say, your friends walls or profiles.
Posted by Bill Maile on October 17, 2010 at 7:52 AM
Hi David, yes, your main point flew over my head like a jet. Sorry!!! That is quite curious and they seem quite evasive in their reponse. I know the word on the street is, "I keep hearing horror stories about posting on FB". I'm just kind of curious as to if anyone has a real horror story of an example. But it's dangerous according to those terms, no doubt! Thank you for the enlightenment!!
Discussion
8 repliesI just received it last night, so I haven't had time to dig into it other than reading a review of it in Digital Imaging, where their general service (free website, POD, printing, customer service, quality of art they promot, etc.--not the new Facebook version) was panned by a small percentage and seemingly praised by more.
POD has its ups and downs, who knows if any sales will be generated, etc. etc. But I'd love to offer people on Facebook the opportunity to purchase photos without leaving FB to go to my site.
FAA's basic service is free, and the POD part comes in at only $30 a YEAR. Now I know they are collecting $30 from thousands of people, but who cares if they deliver what is promised. I would like to know if anyone has had any experience with them specifically.
Thanks.
And John, thanks for the info on FAA. I bit the bullet and went for the Print on Demand option. I only have four or five photos up right now. But with the FB issue, they ask that they be allowed to access your FB content, contacts, post updates, etc. at ANY time?? That's a bit frightening so I've stayed away from it.
Cordially,
Larry Darnell
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/larry-darnell.html
So yeah, that opens things up for abuse, but it's not clear that they could let you share things the way they do if they didn't have some kind of blanket statement like this. I would say that if you're worried, don't use Facebook. I haven't looked at it beyond the basic terms here though.
David, thanks for that info. FB, I don't know. I still post images on there as a way to show my friends and "fans" what I'm doing. I know when I tested and tried to copy my images, I can do it but at a very small image size. Not sure if someone with more technical savvy can do more though.
Bill - The potential issue isn't people copying images off of Facebook. I believe what's shown on the web pages is a low res version, just like what you'd upload to NPN. So you're right, you can only get low res.
The actual issue is that Facebook could potentially sell your image since the terms of service indicate those types of rights (potentially). And since you may be uploading a high res version, which Facebook down-sizes for display, they may even have access to a larger version. As far as I know this has never actually happened, and Facebook has claiimed that the clause in the terms is to allow them to reproduce the images in, say, your friends walls or profiles.