Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Facebook 'doppelganger' craze is illegal
If you don't use Facebook (??), or you haven't logged in during the past week, the 'doppelganger' thing is all about replacing your profile photo with your celebrity look-alike. Harmless, you might think, but the Facebook TOS strictly forbids the uploading of copyrighted images and artwork that you don't have permission to use.
Speaking to CNET, a spokeswoman from Facebook said: "Users are responsible for the content they post, but as always, Facebook will respond to requests for removal that it receives from copyright holders. In this case, we have received no such requests." Curious -- publishers and media outlets are usually all too zealous to stamp down on copyright infringement.
The copyright lords gave, and the copyright lords hath taken away...
Comments
37
Subscribe to commentsHeidi V.Feb 3rd 2010 12:27PM
I was told once by one of my kids at camp that I looked and sounded like Rosie O'Donnell. Therefore one might understand why I didn't post my doppelganger.
My husband did: he's almost a dead ringer for Colin Mochrie from Who's Line Is It Anyway?
Sebastian AnthonyFeb 3rd 2010 12:38PM
One of the funniest people on the planet.
(I hope you've seen the earlier episodes from the UK, with Ryan and Colin at the peak of their comedic form :)
MimzyFeb 3rd 2010 12:27PM
Is it bitchy to hope that the copyright holders DO submit complaints about this?
I'm so damn tired of not seeing anyone's ACTUAL profile picture anymore. It makes it really hard to meet up with fellow classmates and such.
ThirlwellFeb 3rd 2010 6:59PM
Really? This doppleganger thing has been going on for a week. You just decided in the last 7 days that you wanted to reconnect with people you haven't talked to in so long that you do not even have an email address for them?
And it is not bitchy, but slightly self centered that you are wishing the copyright holders file complaints because it tells me that these people you are so anxious to get in touch with, that are having fun with the friends they do have by participating in something that so many people are doing it is generating media coverage, are not allowed to change their picture until you have first added them.
I can see the conversation now "I am so glad you got busted for copyright infringement so I was able to find you :)"
Get a life.
Rocket RaccoonFeb 3rd 2010 12:54PM
I've had many profile pictures that aren't of me. Admiral Ackbar, most recently. I don't have my full name on facebook either. I don't particularly WANT my full name and don't care if I have a picture of me on there or not. If I get flagged to take down the picture of Liev Schreiber then sure. Otherwise I don't see anything wrong with this.
daniellyghtmogFeb 3rd 2010 1:29PM
HAHA it so is because none of us have the rights to the photos! Check out all the most scandalous celeb doppelganger's if they were participating! The lady gaga one is sooooooooo funny!
WhitneyFeb 3rd 2010 2:25PM
Getty images will have a field day with this. They love slapping fines on the unsuspecting and in my opinion are practicing unfair business practices.
AnthonyFeb 3rd 2010 3:19PM
Who started it again???
IanFeb 3rd 2010 9:06PM
Fair use. Nobody's making a profit. On top of that profile pics, even out of thumbnail form, are likely scaled down.
If it was copyright infringement then any time someone saved a picture from the internet, the downloader could be taken to court.
missyFeb 4th 2010 12:15AM
Go to http://celebritydoppelganger.blogspot.com/ to see which celeb you look like.
nicole.haywardFeb 4th 2010 9:14AM
Good point. It probably won't stop anyone though!
MichaelFeb 4th 2010 9:36AM
This is why technology writers shouldn't pretend they went to law school.
First, many of these photos are in the public domain and are not copyrighted to begin with. Second, given the non-commercial and limited nature of posting a profile picture this clearly falls under the Fair Use doctrine (see Section 107 of the copyright law). Does anyone believe the highly-paid staffs of lawyers at media and hollywood companies just curiously overlooked Facebook? There's no lawsuit to be had, hence no "cease and desist" letters sent. This type of "create an issue where none exists because I think it ought to be a news story" is the most worthless kind of journalism.
This author is so lazy for substanitive content that he has to resort to a highly clickable article title that includes "Facebook" and "illegal" to get readers.
How about "SHOCK! Poor web-based journalism could be illegal and get you thrown in jail!!!! .... (subtitle in small print - 'in Iran')" About the same level of stupidity.
Sebastian AnthonyFeb 4th 2010 1:54PM
Thanks for the input!
As I understand 'fair use' (and let's not forget, it's subjective), a thumbnail would be OK, but a full-size image may not be?
In some cases I'm sure it's fine, when the images come from the public domain, but do you really think _every_ image is from the public domain? Isn't that a little hard to prove? I doubt these Facebook users are actually checking the source of the image they find on Google Image search.
stevie pappasFeb 8th 2010 4:47AM
haha, well put...
mailrdavidsonFeb 6th 2010 1:01PM
honestly, everyone is trying SO DESPERATELY to get coverage on The Facebook, I seriously doubt that anyone at all will have a problem with it. Another case of journalism that doesn't want to leave it's desk, if you ask me.
mikewinddaleFeb 7th 2010 6:53AM
Most likely, the copyright holders know they won't lose any money off this. I'm sure the celebrities themselves don't mind. Really, who's going to get hurt (either in public image or financially) by some guy on Facebook borrowing a celebrity's photograph?
HarrionFeb 20th 2010 12:45AM
Look at the bright side, we making those celebrity even more famous =D
Din't we??