Hypothetical copyright question

[Blackwood]

Consider this a spinoff of the copyright violation thread that I don't wish the bump.

There seem to be a number of users fairly well versed in the law. My understanding is limited to the open source licenses I extend with my images.

Hypothetical but very realistic situation:

Photographer posts an image to his personal website. He retains the copyright and grants no license. He disables saving and linking, etc.

Someone else comes across it via google images and either disables JavaScript to save the image or simply takes a screengrab. He then posts it to a site like Facebook which interprets the upload (per their TOS) as granting them a perpetual unlimited commercial license, and accordingly strips out any embedded intellectual property notifications and proceeds to use the image to generate ad revenue.

What happens?

Clearly I (for example) can't grant them the use of someone else's property, but is there legal recourse? And if so, is FB in the clear with the uploader the sole offending party?

Just curious.

 

[Tortuga68]

I have no idea, but if you google facebook + copyright you'll get about 3.3 billion results, including this one: Intellectual Property - Facebook Help Center | Facebook

 

[Blackwood]

I have no idea, but if you google facebook + copyright you'll get about 3.3 billion results, including this one: Intellectual Property - Facebook Help Center | Facebook

"Our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities prohibit users from posting content that violates another party's intellectual property rights."

Predictably, they are relying on users to not infringe on the IP of others.

I wasn't really meaning FB specifically. Generally I'm curious about the legal functionality of "we can do whatever we want what whatever you post, and please dint post stuff you don't own" statements in social sites.

Wonder if there is any legal precedent.