Pro photos cost a lot of money to use and FB just gets them for free. Why?
Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too.
Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too.
a) Because the photographer uploaded it, granting a license to display it under the TOS
b) Because someone else uploaded it without permission and Facebook is protected by DMCA safe harbor provisions so long as they remove it upon request
> Also, big news corps have lots of correspondents and offices around the globe, which are expensive too.
Lots of things are expensive without creating some obligation for an unrelated third party to pay you for it.
And the government did choose to require Facebook to pay for the news. Facebook decided the price wasn't worth it, so now they no longer allow news on their platform. They aren't getting anything for free. Fair and square.
There's no difference between amateur and professional photographers under the law. In both cases it's a photo uploaded to Facebook by someone who owns the copyright on it. When you upload a photo to Facebook you grant them a license to display it when people see your post. They're not Getty, you're not selling your photo to them.
Like I'm not sure where the disconnect it, do you wish Facebook had a monetization scheme like YouTube? Because that's entirely voluntary. For "pirated" content monetization is a voluntary offering that serves as an alternative to issuing a takedown request.
Still no comment on why news corps have to pay for pics and content when FB gets it all for free.