# A breeder hijacked my facebook photos



## ed1911 (Jan 19, 2011)

The GSD breeder that I got my male from tagged himself in some of the photos of my dogs on my facebook page. I have since removed him and the photos and tightened the security settings. Then when I looked at his website there are pics of both my dogs and me. I put alot of work and effort into training and earning titles and at no time did I agree to market his business. What are your opinions?


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

I'd contact the breeder and ask him/her to remove the photos as a first step.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

Agreed with Paula if you really don't want them using your photos for their business.

Out of curiosity... Is there a reason why you don't want them using them? Did you have a bad experience with them?


----------



## KZoppa (Aug 14, 2010)

i agree you should contact and request they remove the photos. You may have gotten the dog from them, but they still legally have to have permission to use your pictures. Especially if you're in them.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Just ask to have them removed and see what happens. For me it wouldn't be a big deal...and most breeders probably have purple sending them pics all the time to add to their website or share. I know I've already told medos breede he can use anything I send him.

So it could be he just assumesand doesn't mean to piss ya off!


----------



## doggiedad (Dec 2, 2007)

is the breeder taking any credit for
training or titles earned?? if the answer
is no i would let the breeder use the photos
with no problem and be proud that the breeder
wanted to use my dog/dogs.


----------



## Franksmom (Oct 13, 2010)

I would just contact them like the others have said, I send my breeder pictures all the time and I know she asked me if she could use his picture on her website and on facebook which is fine with me.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

If the breeder did not have your permission, it is at the very least, tacky.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Breeders do this all the time. Now, maybe they have permission and maybe they don't but when I was searching for a breeder around my area I ran into one that advertised how their dogs were police dogs in so and so county and even had a dog go to Iraq. Now its clear that they didn't train those dogs and just sold them off to the different agency but they still want people to know that their dogs have this potential (they also cost about $3000 because of this).

My breeder has pictures of my dog on their facebook, tagged with the name, place, and age. I think its cool to go on there and see littermates and older dogs just to get a picture of what my dog might be like.


----------



## Stosh (Jun 26, 2010)

I've sent pictures of Stosh to the breeder so they can keep up with his progress. They asked permission if they could use some on their website for others to see which was fine with me. Even though I sent the pictures they still asked first!


----------



## wolfstraum (May 2, 2003)

There is nothing wrong with a breeder wanting to show what the dogs he bred can do!!!! Unless you have had some conflict with them, I would think you would be happy and proud of your dog and would enjoy seeing him showcased!!! 

As a breeder, I am proud of every title or credential that dogs I breed earn - from LE Narcotics, to Sch3 to CGC and RN! Of course I did not train those dogs!!! But I bred them, nurtured them, and placed them in homes where I hoped they would succeed in accomplishing their owners goals!

Lee


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I had an agreement with my breeder that they can use the pictures I post if they so wish to, but if you had no such agreement, they should have asked you first. 

I'd ask nicely for them to take the pictures down and to ask permission in the future if they want to use any of your pics.


----------



## BlackPuppy (Mar 29, 2007)

I have good relationships with the breeders of my two most recent dogs. But we still ask each other for permission before using each other's photos.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

I sent my breeder some picitures and she asked my permsission to post them, which I gave.

Seaching the internet and taking someone's pictures is stealing in my books, although very easy to do. (I also fequent a photography message board where is this a hot topic). If they were a member of your facebook then it would have been very easy to ask permission to use your photos. How hard is it to ask for permission and then to acknowledge that the photo was taken by an owner, or mention the name if the picture is a good piece of photography.

Not that I am a good photographer and people would want my photos but when I download my pictures I copyright them with my name and year. If my photos were to be used in a business I would want that business to ask my permission and give me credit for the photo.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

I would think if you posted the pictures on Facebook for the entire world to see, then you wouldn't mind them being posted on the breeder's website. I agree the breeder should have asked, but it would have been different if you had sent the breeder private pictures via email or something.


----------



## bocron (Mar 15, 2009)

We use client photos all the time, but we always ask. If the breeder just "claimed" the pics from your fb page then that is not good. I would be irked! I would send a note and request the pics be removed as you didn't give permission. 
Annette


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Tacky and a copyright violation. I would request the photos removed if you don't want them to use them. At the very least, I would send a note expressing your concern that they just took the photos without asking.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

wolfstraum said:


> There is nothing wrong with a breeder wanting to show what the dogs he bred can do!!!! Unless you have had some conflict with them, I would think you would be happy and proud of your dog and would enjoy seeing him showcased!!!
> 
> As a breeder, I am proud of every title or credential that dogs I breed earn - from LE Narcotics, to Sch3 to CGC and RN! Of course I did not train those dogs!!! But I bred them, nurtured them, and placed them in homes where I hoped they would succeed in accomplishing their owners goals!
> 
> Lee


It is not uncommon to see photos of past litters, and of course if they accomplished something, that's all the better.
I'm curious too, why not just ask them to remove them...but why not let them use them? As long as they are stating it's a dog from their place, and that you trained it?


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

Lilie said:


> I would think if you posted the pictures on Facebook for the entire world to see, then you wouldn't mind them being posted on the breeder's website. I agree the breeder should have asked, but it would have been different if you had sent the breeder private pictures via email or something.


Hm, that's interesting, I have just the opposite perspective. 

I assumed when I e-mailed photos of Shasta to her breeder that they'd be posted on the breeder's website. I would be very shocked if the same breeder dropped by my facebook page and just purloined some photos without permission, especially if any of my family members or I happened to be in those photos.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

Lilie said:


> I would think if you posted the pictures on Facebook for the entire world to see, then you wouldn't mind them being posted on the breeder's website. I agree the breeder should have asked, but it would have been different if you had sent the breeder private pictures via email or something.


I post pictures of my dogs on my FB page. My FB privacy settings are set to friends only.
I would be MIGHTY peeved to come across pictures of my dogs on anybody's webpage, without a prior conversation and permission. Even if I liked the person, it would be very, very, rude.


----------



## Veronica1 (Jun 22, 2010)

Common courtesy would have been to ask for your permission. Just because he bred your dog doesn't give him ownership rights for the dog's whole life.

I do pet sitting as a side job and love to take my client's pet's pictures; however, I always ask before posting them and am careful not to have any personal items in the pictures.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Jax08 said:


> Tacky and a copyright violation. I would request the photos removed if you don't want them to use them. At the very least, I would send a note expressing your concern that they just took the photos without asking.


As a copyright violation, stealing someone's photos to advertise your business is illegal, and you can sue them. 

If you don't want them using your photos, simply send a note asking them to take the photos down, with a polite reminder of copyright law.

Many breeders use pictures of dogs they have bred, but no longer own, on their website. If I were a breeder, I'd be proud of the accomplishments a dog of my breeding had acheived, and I'd want as many photos as possible, but doing so without asking the owner's permission is pretty tacky IMO.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

We actually have a clause in our contract that allows us to use accomplishments and photos of dogs as "advertising", and people sign off to that effect when they get their pup. I do still ask at times, particularly if someone I don't talk to frequently and I come across a photo some place like FB rather than one that was emailed to me or posted on forums where people know I'm going to see it and potentially use it.

I know I've seen similar things in other breeder's contracts, so I wonder how often people may have signed a similar clause on a purchase contract, perhaps not even remembering it was there, and thus the breeder assumes due to that clause that they can use anything they come across without having to ask every time.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

But, Chris, do you assume that clause gives you rights to every photo of the dog you might stumble across? Would you use photos that had people or other identifying features in them?


----------



## Holmeshx2 (Apr 25, 2010)

if you signed a contract go back and look at it... I didn't even remember that being in my contract until it was just mentioned. Not that I care I'm super proud of my pup and super proud of my breeder and have a great relationship so have no problem what so ever if they found a picture anywhere to nab it and use it heck if they find it worthy to post on their website I feel priviledged that I'm doing a good enough job with one of their dogs for them to show off to the world.


----------



## Holmeshx2 (Apr 25, 2010)

Paula if you look back she said if it's not someone that keeps close contact with her or she just comes across it on somewhere a bit more private like FB then she asks but if it's somewhere that people know she'll see them (like on this public forum) she might not. I have pictures I posted here with my husband in them and they are posted on the website under Jinx's updated pictures. If they pictures don't have a person (or something like a house address) in them then no reason the breeder shouldn't be allowed to take the picture.. even if they have a person in them and are on a public website then it shouldn't be an issue. The only reason I can see being upset is if they really don't get along with their breeder but if thats the case then why in the world would you have the breeder on your FB page?


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

I do think the breeder should have asked, no question about it. However, I don't think I would run out and get an atty and sue the breeder because of it. Nor would I create a thread on an open forum regarding it. I'd simply speak to my breeder. 

Unless there is some kind of ill feelings between you and the breeder already.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

Illegal if they did not get permission from who ever took the foto. Send them a polite email and request that they be removed within "x days". Check the following day of the date; if not removed and no answer, notifiy server host.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

I put alot of work and effort into training and earning titles and at no time did I agree to market his business. What are your opinions?[/QUOTE]

well since you ask I am going to give it to you straight. Quoting you the crux of the problem is not privacy , but one of the breeder not benefiting from your efforts . Titles are public record . You also have pictures of the dog with titles posted on the pedigree data base , and that is public record, which could have been cut and pasted and used by the breeder .
Congratulations on the titles you have earned . I would thank you for going out there and doing something with the dogs. However, the titles are basic and will not have hoards of people cutting a path to the breeders door or your door for an opportunity to breed.
The breeder might be a newby and any positive input is evidence of being on the right track.
Now if on the other hand the dog had been a disaster , would you have gone ape and posted information that would have been damaging to the breeder ? 
I don't participate on FaceBook or MySpace or any of those . How private are those anyway.
I think a potential employer can visit , is this correct. 
The very post that you did here on the forum can be read by any visitor. 

So why did you go back and visit the breeders web site ?

Carmen
Carmspack Working German Shepherd Dogs


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

They probably should have asked. However they bred you a fantastic dog and you worked hard and are titling them. Personally I would feel proud to have them displayed on the breeders site.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

Carmen,

Titles listed are OK, but fotos are not fair use. Permission has to be granted or it is illegal. It is very black and white.


----------



## WarrantsWifey (Dec 18, 2010)

Sue, you can share all the pictures you have of Killian if you want! My boy is si handsome like his daddy, he should be shared with the world ;-) Hehe!! Oh I gotta message you on Facebook after class!!


----------



## SchHGSD (Dec 20, 2001)

I guess a lot depends on your breeder, also.

I do not even have a contract with my current young male (German import) and contracts, IME, are very rare in Europe.

I send her pics quite frequently, and if I post a pic of the dog on FB, I MYSELF tag the breeder. I have no problem with her sharing pics or using them on her own website. After all, I would rather have an interested breeder, than one who mentally signs off after you buy the dog.

However, I can also see why you might be upset, and she should follow your wishes and remove the pictures.


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

doggiedad said:


> is the breeder taking any credit for
> training or titles earned?? if the answer
> is no i would let the breeder use the photos
> with no problem and be proud that the breeder
> wanted to use my dog/dogs.





Jack's Dad said:


> They probably should have asked. However they bred you a fantastic dog and you worked hard and are titling them. Personally I would feel proud to have them displayed on the breeders site.


 
I'm agreeing with doggiedad and Jack' Dad on this one.. 

If they were random strangers 'stealing' your photos, that would be one thing. And if they are copywritten photos, then that's also different.

But the fact it's the breeder is EXACTLY what breeding is all about. I WANT my responsible breeder to know how well my dog is doing. Because while clearly my training and experience have impact on how my dog is doing, the fact that the genetics worked with me is a HUGE part of the success.

Additionally, the fact many of the best breeders name their puppies before they leave their home is exactly because they WANT to follow all the dogs they breed and their progress. The good AND the bad will come back because anyone can go in and check on the progress of a dog and their title in most organizations. So that's public informations rather than a BIG SECRET.

Record keeping and breeding were created for exactly the reason you are upset about  So people (anyone) can know not just about a dog they are looking at, but go back for generations to follow and see what's working and not and try to figure out why.

If it was all a GREAT BIG SECRET then it would be so easy to hide the bad and only brag on the good. I'd be proud of the fact your dog is doing so well rather than upset about the bragging your breeder is doing about a dog THEY BRED.

Unless there are some horrible secrets about your dog (temperment? health?) and you are afraid they will now be known. Particularly if you want to breed I can understand your fear of the breeder being contacted for additional information. If I had real issues with my dog I'd be hiding them too if I wanted to breed the dog.


----------



## ken k (Apr 3, 2006)

it's called "theft of intellectual property", if your not ok with it, the tell him to remove it


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I would not be OK with this but the reason is because recently I have had pictures I've taken stolen from someone else. I took pictures of my friend and her dog. The breeder of the dog had these pictures on Facebook. So far, that is all fine by me. But, since those people have wide-open privacy settings, someone that none of us know stole the pictures and put them on his account and profile photo, advertising the dog as his. Because of that, I've had to ask (repeatedly) that my friends and acquaintances NOT use my photos without my permission. When someone asks for a photo, I watermark and and give it to them. I know removing a watermark is easy enough but it seems people who steal things at random are more likely to move on to someone else if my photos are watermarked. I have never NOT given someone a photo of their dog or a dog they've bred, I just prefer to be ASKED so I can add the watermark and keep track. This is for everyone's protection. So it's not just about people stealing from me, but people stealing my photos from other people. That is what I'm trying to prevent.


----------



## suzzyq01 (Feb 15, 2011)

I friggin shove new photos of Sonar practically down my breeders throat by tagging and posting on their fb page. I love to show them how well he is doing in our training and also how handsome he is becoming. 

IF the relationship is good with the breeder and they took them they are proud of you (the owner) and their breeding (the pup) and want to show it off. Granted they prob should have asked if it was ok to post on their website, but if your friends on FB then it's assumed they would tag if they were proud of you.

IF the relationship is not good then why were you friends on FB and why do you stalk their website? Just wondering...

Photos that are posted on the internet(FB, Photobucket, Flickr, Pedigree Database, etc) that do not have copy right encoded on them or a water mark are free for the taking. Next time put a water mark on them.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

For any of the people that bought a dog or puppy from us, I would request and require written permission to use any fotos.

I have had fotos stolen via various methods. And I have addressed correctly each time.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

I think the OP should be able to tell by the mixed feelings for the photos, that the breeder may not have done it to be sneaky, or mean. Contact your breeder.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

ken k said:


> it's called "theft of intellectual property", if your not ok with it, the tell him to remove it


It's not about the dog, it is about the photograph.

I can take a photo of any dog in a public place and post my picutre of your dog all over the internet to show off my photograpy skills. The photo belongs to me, the dog is the subject of my photo. If I take a picture of your dog in a public place and use it in my business website, I believe it's best to get a signed release, but not 100% sure if it is required for an animal.

If a school photographer takes a picture of my child and I scan that picture, because she is so cute, and post it on the internet, I have broken copyright and the photographer can come after me.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

MaggieRoseLee said:


> And if they are copywritten photos, then that's also different.


ALL photos enjoy copyright protection at the moment they are created. Using someone's photo without their permission is copyright infringement, plain and simple. I have had to go after people who have stolen my photographs for advertising, reminding them of copyright law, and they've paid up pretty quickly. Even if watermarked, photos are pretty easy to steal, and most people just do it figuing they can get away with it. But it IS illegal.

Of course, I am happy to share photos of my dog with my breeder, but if someone else doesn't want to, they have every right to ask the photos be removed.


----------



## ed1911 (Jan 19, 2011)

I've never had a problem with the breeder and do not mind the breeder keeping a copy for himself. I just didnt give him permission to post them to his site as a marketing tool. Our hard work and accomplishments ribbons, titles, CGC, ect. instantly become his free of charge, adding value to his product. I paid full price for the pup so why should he reap the benefits of my hard work for free? 
The thing that really annoyed me was the fact that he tagged himself in my dogs pics on facebook. Thereby turning my page into his personal commercial ad space. All of this without asking.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

Caledon said:


> It's not about the dog, it is about the photograph.
> 
> I can take a photo of any dog in a public place and post my picutre of your dog all over the internet to show off my photograpy skills. The photo belongs to me, the dog is the subject of my photo. If I take a picture of your dog in a public place and use it in my business website, I believe it's best to get a signed release, but not 100% sure if it is required for an animal.
> 
> If a school photographer takes a picture of my child and I scan that picture, because she is so cute, and post it on the internet, I have broken copyright and the photographer can come after me.


With the child (minor issue), even with copyright protection, a foto of a minor child cannot be used in any form or fashion without consent from the parents/guardian of the minor child. Does not matter if at a public event; most states, if not all, do have a law against it. Not sure if at the federal level as well.


----------



## e.rigby (May 28, 2011)

ed1911 said:


> I've never had a problem with the breeder and do not mind the breeder keeping a copy for himself. I just didnt give him permission to post them to his site as a marketing tool. Our hard work and accomplishments ribbons, titles, CGC, ect. instantly become his free of charge, adding value to his product. I paid full price for the pup so why should he reap the benefits of my hard work for free?
> The thing that really annoyed me was the fact that he tagged himself in my dogs pics on facebook. Thereby turning my page into his personal commercial ad space. All of this without asking.


Sounds to me you don't think highly of your breeder, which personally I find sad. Your breeder BRED your wonderful dog for you. A huge part of your dog is directly due to your breeder making sure the sire and the dam were compatible and you paid the high price you did for a stable temperament and good genetic health! 

If you wanted to get a cheap dog, you could have gone to a byb ... try titling a dog with an unstable temperament and health problems! It's far harder! 

So your 'hard work' is only 50 percent of the equation! I've trained stable dogs, I've trained unstable dogs... it's so much easier to start with a well bred dog! On a side note, I don't really find it difficult to get a RN or a CD on a smart well bred dog such as a GSD...


----------



## ed1911 (Jan 19, 2011)

Had he asked, I would have granted permission with the stipulation that he acknowledge that the dog was trained and handled by us, but I never would have let him link his page to my photos on facebook, that was rude. I have asked him to remove the photos and have blocked him from my facebook page.
If he trained and titled his own dogs I wouldent take it as personal, but he dosent. I understand that CD, RN, and CGC are basic but you still have to get off your ass and train for them. 
My purchase agreement has no stipulations regarding any information or photos, it just says I have 2 days to get the pup checked out by a vet and return him with a written poor health letter from the vet.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

ohhhhh....doesn't sound like a great breeder?? I guess I might object to his behavior given those grounds also.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

Again, it has to do with legality, not relationship.


----------



## e.rigby (May 28, 2011)

ed1911 said:


> My purchase agreement has no stipulations regarding any information or photos, it just says I have 2 days to get the pup checked out by a vet and return him with a written poor health letter from the vet.


That is a pretty suck health guarantee :/ but I think I still stand behind the 'you don't think highly of your breeder' ... then again, if he doesn't train/work his dogs, and he doesn't offer a standard 2yr guarantee -- I wouldn't think highly of him either.

Maybe, if you get another dog, you'll go to a great breeder  I email Virgil's breeder and send him pictures and our training progress all the time.. I'm sure he's sick of hearing it -- as we're only just about ready to take the CGC (I've only had Virgil for 4 months) and then after that we'll do Novice A. I doubt he'd ever post us on his site considering he trains and titles his dogs as Sch3


----------



## e.rigby (May 28, 2011)

Smithie86 said:


> Again, it has to do with legality, not relationship.


I think it has to do with both; if I really respected my breeder -- I wouldn't care if they posted information of my accomplishments or pictures of my dogs without first asking. So for me, good relationship = unspoken permission.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

then the breeder could have used the pictures on the pedigree data base.

I don't like the philosophy that dogs are product that have added value. 

What is really the issue, what is the motivation. You say "instantly become his free of charge" and "why should he reap the benefits of my hard work for free" 
so then, what, you want him to pay you for something?

If you think the titles are so worthy then look at it as you improving the "value" of your dog .

I find difficulty in CGC being a title even , a basic temperament test.

So then a good kennel with progeny going out there doing police service work representing successful choices in genetics should have prices that each year, each litter ratchet up in the dollars. Doesn't happen . 

Did look at a few kennels associated with the sires and dams of the links you provided on the pedigree data base . 

Carmen


----------



## MaggieRoseLee (Aug 17, 2001)

Freestep said:


> ALL photos enjoy copyright protection at the moment they are created. Using someone's photo without their permission is copyright infringement, plain and simple. I have had to go after people who have stolen my photographs for advertising, reminding them of copyright law, and they've paid up pretty quickly. Even if watermarked, photos are pretty easy to steal, and most people just do it figuing they can get away with it. But it IS illegal.


People need to be way more aware that when you post things on the internet, it's not private anymore. It's all well and good to whine that picture/dog are mine mine mine, and it IS nice to be asked permission, you may be surprised when you post who CAN use the photo.

And FACEBOOK isn't a place to post if you are trying to hide something: Are Facebook Photos Public Property?_Content-Type states:



> Facebook's terms of service expressly state that by uploading any kind of content, whether in the form of photos or material, you are automatically assigning copyright control to Facebook. All photos you upload to Facebook therefore become the property of Facebook. This means that Facebook can sell copies of photos posted by you without paying you any form of profit. *Whenever you share photos with your Facebook friends you are giving up ownership of any intellectual property rights you may own in the photos you upload.*
> 
> *
> 
> *


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

I'm curious why you bought your dog from your breeder if you have such little respect for him? To think of him using your photos as "reaping the benefits" of your "hard work" is just bizarre!

I guess whether or not you gave permission for the photos isn't even the issue (because I agree with MRL--NOTHING ON FACEBOOK IS PRIVATE!!!)...I mean, yes, it is in one sense, but there SO much more to this whole thing.

I don't like that your breeder used the pics without asking and can understand you being annoyed--but I'm SURE he wasn't being sneaky since he tagged himself on your page in the first place. And I doubt that he is overly concerned with using you as a real marketing tool...no one "high up" in the GSD world would be OVERLY impressed with the titles on your dog (not that it is not a HUGE accomplishment, but it's not exactly like saying you bred a WUSV winner).

I would say that in the future A. Be a lot more picky about who you buy a dog from--I don't think anyone should be mad and feel like their breeder owes you something by allowing them to use a few pictures (especially since they can just link to your PBD pedigree and have pictures available!!) and B. Be more familiar with facebook and other istes (ie PBD) that you most pictures on


----------



## Jack's Dad (Jun 7, 2011)

I'm with GSDElsa and MRL. There is really no such thing as privacy anymore. I read that they can track a smart phone to within feet of it's location even when you are not actively using it. Can't hide or keep much ofanything secret any more.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

ed1911 said:


> I've never had a problem with the breeder and do not mind the breeder keeping a copy for himself. I just didnt give him permission to post them to his site as a marketing tool. Our hard work and accomplishments ribbons, titles, CGC, ect. instantly become his free of charge, adding value to his product. I paid full price for the pup so why should he reap the benefits of my hard work for free?
> The thing that really annoyed me was the fact that he tagged himself in my dogs pics on facebook. Thereby turning my page into his personal commercial ad space. All of this without asking.


Wow. That's so odd of you to put it like that.
The breeder bred a dog, after studying generations of pedigrees, and bred a product WORTHY to work with! 
There's thousands of poorly bred dogs who could not do what your dog did, all because a person took care in how they bred their dogs. 
They aren't getting rich or going to because you got some titles on your dogs.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

PS. check out other breeder's sites. Almost all I've seen have "produced" pages and that's what I'm assuming your breeder did. It's not unusual, or unexpected that a breeder would have a page like this and post up pups produced by them.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

e.rigby said:


> I think it has to do with both; if I really respected my breeder -- I wouldn't care if they posted information of my accomplishments or pictures of my dogs without first asking. So for me, good relationship = unspoken permission.


But to me, doing photography = asking permission to use a foto no matter what the relationship. I took fotos of a friend's husband and dog at the Nationals a few years back. She (since she also did some photography and worked on their web-site) ensured that I sent her written permission to use the fotos.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

MaggieRoseLee said:


> People need to be way more aware that when you post things on the internet, it's not private anymore. It's all well and good to whine that picture/dog are mine mine mine, and it IS nice to be asked permission, you may be surprised when you post who CAN use the photo.
> 
> And FACEBOOK isn't a place to post if you are trying to hide something: Are Facebook Photos Public Property?_Content-Type states:


 
Depends on the media used. Has nothing to do with whining. Copyright (unless otherwise assigned, as per above)) is retain in full by the photographer (who took the image). And the fines can be hefty against people that commit the infringement. Usually it is not known and a polite email/letter sent and requested removal usually takes care of it. If not, then one has to go up the food chain. 

But, does that mean that someone who copies a foto off of facebook is then commiting copyright infringement against facebook?


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

Sue,

I don't think anyone is arguing that the breeder in hindsight SHOULD have asked to use the photos...but would you not find it bothersome if one of your puppy buyers felt that you using one of their photos on your website or facebook was in some way reaping the benefits of what you bred?


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

Actually, when you upload photos to Facebook, you retain the copyright, but you grant permission TO FACEBOOK to use them.

https://www.facebook.com/help/?faq=193430577370347

More info here:

https://www.facebook.com/terms.php


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

> Whenever you share photos with your Facebook friends you are giving up ownership of any intellectual property rights you may own in the photos you upload.


Sounds pretty straight forward to me...


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

msvette2u...Actually, that's not true. Check out the links I provided.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

From facebooks statement of rights:

"When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)."

https://www.facebook.com/terms.php


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> From facebooks statement of rights:
> 
> "When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture)."
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/terms.php


But only when you use the Public setting.


----------



## Rerun (Feb 27, 2006)

Weirdest thread ever....

I would be proud to have a dog I owned displayed on a breeders website.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

paulag1955 said:


> But only when you use the Public setting.


And the OP has indicated that their security settings were rather lax and had to change them to prevent their "defriended" breeder to no longer have access....hence implying the content was previously public.

Still think it's wrong that the breeder assumed, but people really need to wisen up about facebook and other public websites if they are going to make a huge deal out of something like this.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

GSDElsa said:


> Still think it's wrong that the breeder assumed, but people really need to wisen up about facebook and other public websites if they are going to make a huge deal out of something like this.


Agreed!


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

This site is the same way isn't it?? Once you put pics up here the GSD.com owner can use it as they wish...or am I mistaken in that?


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

onyx'girl said:


> This site is the same way isn't it?? Once you put pics up here the GSD.com owner can use it as they wish...or am I mistaken in that?


You are not mistaken on that. From the board rules:


> ANYTHING posted or uploaded on Germanshepherds.com (images, text) allows the owners of the site to use in any way at their discretion and/or allows the site owners to remove or edit at their discretion.


The big difference between FB and here is that at least FB has the decency to allow you to delete things you post, as they state in their terms:


> You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:
> 
> 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 here, while you do maintain copyright protection, you can't really do much with that since you can't manage your content. The board owners can use your copyrighted material for life. This is very different from FB's policy.

Again, from the board rules:


> Also, think before you post. For the most part, we do not edit or delete posts and the only time we would consider doing so is in cases that pose as a security risk to the user(s). *Anything you post will leave a digital footprint for LIFE.* Think carefully before posting.


So while you maintain copyright access to what you post here- you don't really since you can't remove the board owner's access to said content.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

You can break the link(delete) in the photobucket account(if that is what you use) so the pics can be deleted from the board.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Yep! Totally agree. It's not a bad reason at all to use photobucket for pic display here. Not sure what PB's policy is though.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

When you post something on this site, though, you're giving the site owners permission to use your content...not the world.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I think the board rule here applies to uploading to the photo albums here, not posting links to photos posted elsewhere.

I find the most telling part of this thread to be the title "*A* breeder"


----------



## Lakl (Jul 23, 2011)

I agree that the breeder should have asked permission, but I find the thought process behind this post a little baffling. I think it's great that the OP has put forth the work to title his dog, but shouldn't the breeder be allowed to be proud of what he has bred? I could attempt to work my BYB GSD, but it would be useless as she could not even obtain a CGC being that she is fear reactive. All the training in the world could not make her at ease in many situations and around strange dogs, and this is because my breeder chose to breed a dam with shaky nerves and temperament.

I think a better way to approach this would have been "communication" with the breeder. Perhaps the OP could've contacted them and voiced his concern and asked that information be posted in regards to the dog's training. As in - "Jake, from our C Litter, owned and trained by -" . I think that would have been fair. Seems kinda rude to just unfriend and block the person that produced the dog you are so proud of... JMO...


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

FWIW, Facebook has been very good to me with how they handle DMCA violations. They've removed stolen property within 48 hours every time, but it's still a pain to file. No, not everything posted on FB is automatically anyone's property. I have very strict privacy settings and I hotlink all my images (they are not uploaded to Facebook, I think I have less than 20 photos total that are actually inside my FB profile - photos I share on FB are linked to Flickr, where the license for every one of my 20,000+ photos is clearly stated on the page). I upload all my photos to Flickr since I basically use it as my off site backup should my hard drives fail. I pay for that service and I (and most people I know who use it that are hobbyist or semi-pro) take the licensing seriously. There *is* plenty of creative commons stuff out there that anyone can use for free. Just because a photo is on some page somewhere does not mean it is a free for all.


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

GSDElsa said:


> Sue,
> 
> I don't think anyone is arguing that the breeder in hindsight SHOULD have asked to use the photos...but would you not find it bothersome if one of your puppy buyers felt that you using one of their photos on your website or facebook was in some way reaping the benefits of what you bred?


 
That is why I would always check 1st and ensure that it was listed as the owner wanted. If not, it does not go on.

I took fotos at training. I would not post - I will send to owners.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

Also can go the other way....a pup or dog is posted on a site, and the breeder isn't really happy about how it may look(interpretation is always up for debate) say a shallow bite or insecure looking dog type shot. Would the breeder ask the owner to please not post their pups in this manner?
Another thought, what if someone is taking pics of my dog and they didn't ask me. Then I have to jump thru hoops to access the pics or purchase them? 
I think it is common courtesy on the part of the photographer and the subject to have common consent on how the pics will be used and where they will be posted. Most everyone I know does this, it is common sense, but on FB or some forums I see many posts of dogs, or a training session that I would be embarrassed to post if it were my dog or from my breeding. Or if I were the helper working the dog....everyone likes to interpret a session as they see it in a pic, not what really what may be going on within that session.


----------



## msvette2u (Mar 20, 2006)

Lakl said:


> I agree that the breeder should have asked permission, but I find the thought process behind this post a little baffling. I think it's great that the OP has put forth the work to title his dog, but shouldn't the breeder be allowed to be proud of what he has bred? I could attempt to work my BYB GSD, but it would be useless as she could not even obtain a CGC being that she is fear reactive. All the training in the world could not make her at ease in many situations and around strange dogs, and this is because my breeder chose to breed a dam with shaky nerves and temperament.
> 
> I think a better way to approach this would have been "communication" with the breeder. Perhaps the OP could've contacted them and voiced his concern and asked that information be posted in regards to the dog's training. As in - "Jake, from our C Litter, owned and trained by -" . I think that would have been fair. Seems kinda rude to just unfriend and block the person that produced the dog you are so proud of... JMO...


Agreed...


----------



## Smithie86 (Jan 9, 2001)

Jane,

Good points. 

On the puppy/dog thing - the puppy/dog belongs to the new owner. Experienced or not, there will be posted fotos that might not be the best. 

I think within a training group, people do talk about that. When I started shooting fotos at Menlo Park - it was not digital . I was practicing, so most shots went to owners and they could pick and chose. 

When I was at the AWDF this past year, I was playing with different angles, times, exposures, and some video. For my benefit - as I do for fun. Gabor (and some other compet/helpers and photographers) will look thru and critique, per my request. 

Victoria asked 1st thing the 1st day re: helper. No issue.


----------



## Holmeshx2 (Apr 25, 2010)

onyx'girl said:


> Also can go the other way....a pup or dog is posted on a site, and the breeder isn't really happy about how it may look(interpretation is always up for debate) say a shallow bite or insecure looking dog type shot. Would the breeder ask the owner to please not post their pups in this manner?
> Another thought, what if someone is taking pics of my dog and they didn't ask me. Then I have to jump thru hoops to access the pics or purchase them?
> I think it is common courtesy on the part of the photographer and the subject to have common consent on how the pics will be used and where they will be posted. Most everyone I know does this, it is common sense, but on FB or some forums I see many posts of dogs, or a training session that I would be embarrassed to post if it were my dog or from my breeding. Or if I were the helper working the dog....everyone likes to interpret a session as they see it in a pic, not what really what may be going on within that session.


very good point! There are times when I don't take very good pictures bad facial expressions etc... but I take them to send to my husband to simply show him something and don't care much about the rest of the picture. I would never post these pictures anywhere they are simply for me to send my husband while he's deployed to show him something going on at training and help keep him in the loop. I sent the links to people who were in the pictures so they could see and take whatever pictures they may have wanted but the main purpose was for my husband just to get some moments in time he was not here to share. I think if you take someone elses picture you should definitely get permission before posting it I have taken photos on walks with friends and asked before putting them up since his daughter was in some of the shots with Jinx. But if the pictures are just of the dog itself I see nothing wrong with using it... now of course I do see a gray area if it's a professional photographer where they get paid for their pictures and others just sharing them freely without prior consent.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Back Arrow Key!


----------



## suzzyq01 (Feb 15, 2011)

I have to agree with ReRun....the weirdest thread in a while.


----------



## ed1911 (Jan 19, 2011)

The pics have been removed. Thanks for the opinions. It was very interesting to hear other points of view on the subject.


----------

