Celebrity Social Media Photos

[SEOpie]

Hi all,

So, quick question, if a celebrity publicly posts a photo on Instagram or Facebook that includes them using our product, are we able to then share that photo, providing we don't suggest they are endorsing it in any way, without their permission?

 

[ethical PR]

I don't see why not. What sort of SEO product was the celebrity sharing

 

[SEOpie]

It was a client's fitness product. The celebrity is one of the top F1 drivers.

We reposted initially after seeing their post with many of our products in the picture, tagging them. Then a member of their SM team got back to us asking us to take down the image.
I couldn't see why, as they still kept the image public on their account.

 

[fisicx]

Did you just share the image on your FB feed? Or did you post the image outside FB/Instagram?

 

[ethical PR]

It was a client's fitness product. The celebrity is one of the top F1 drivers.

We reposted initially after seeing their post with many of our products in the picture, tagging them. Then a member of their SM team got back to us asking us to take down the image.
I couldn't see why, as they still kept the image public on their account.

@SEOpie as someone who works for an SEO agency you need to have a better understanding of what you can and can’t do around online third party content

In your initial post you talked about ‘sharing a celeb post’ about YOUR product.

Now you are saying it is actually a client’s product and that you reposted rather than shared.

It also doesn’t help when you only tells half the story in your post i.e. missing out the key fact that the celebs social media people told you to remove the post.

Your agency should have a clear policy around sharing of third party content particularly around celebs with high value brands.

 

[Mr D]

It was a client's fitness product. The celebrity is one of the top F1 drivers.

We reposted initially after seeing their post with many of our products in the picture, tagging them. Then a member of their SM team got back to us asking us to take down the image.
I couldn't see why, as they still kept the image public on their account.

Perhaps because you had no agreement with them to do it?

 

[ethical PR]

Perhaps because you had no agreement with them to do it?

well there is a big difference between sharing and re-posting

 

[SEOpie]

Did you just share the image on your FB feed? Or did you post the image outside FB/Instagram?

It was reposted on Instagram, where they originally posted it.

@SEOpie as someone who works for an SEO agency you need to have a better understanding of what you can and can’t do around online third party content

In your initial post you talked about ‘sharing a celeb post’ about YOUR product.

Now you are saying it is actually a client’s product and that you reposted rather than shared.

It also doesn’t help when you only tells half the story in your post i.e. missing out the key fact that the celebs social media people told you to remove the post.

Your agency should have a clear policy around sharing of third party content particularly around celebs with high value brands.

In my original post I offered limited information, to see what kind of response I would get. Now I’m offering more. I didn’t expect such a response, to be frank.

Anyway, it’s fine to say that, if there is a clear line here. But there isn’t. As far as I understand it, a photo is still owned by the person who took and uploaded it, but by uploading you are giving Insta or FB permission to control it. Hence it could be used for republishing.

Our policy is that if a celebrity has shared a photo of a product we (the company we represent) produce, then as long as we are not suggesting an endorsement, we can repost on the same platform. We would request permission to tag, or suggest endorsement as necessary.

 

[BustersDogs]

Regardless of celebrities, brands or products, you don't own the copyright to the photo, so while you can share the original post with your own comments, you cant download it, then repost it from your account. Your policy to repost other people's photos is breaking the law.

 

[SEOpie]

...so while you can share the original post with your own comments, you cant download it, then repost it from your account.

Ok, that makes sense. Thank you.

 

[SEOpie]

I should note here that we don’t normally take on social media management, hence why there was some confusion. We temporarily took over control of a client’s account while they found another manager.

 

[SEOpie]

In your initial post you talked about ‘sharing a celeb post’ about YOUR product.

Now you are saying it is actually a client’s product and that you reposted rather than shared.

Apologies, I said reposted, when I meant to say shared.
We shared their original post, and they asked us to take it down. So we took it down.

 

[obscure]

Our policy is that if a celebrity has shared a photo of a product we (the company we represent) produce, then as long as we are not suggesting an endorsement, we can repost on the same platform. We would request permission to tag, or suggest endorsement as necessary.

You are using someone else's photo without permission, to promote your clients product.
You are using someone else's likeness/celebrity to promote your clients product, without permission.
Both of these things expose your client to serious and expensive legal repercussions.

Luckily these people asked you to remove it and you did. But, had they decided to take legal action then taking down the image wouldn't provide any protection. Your client has used it and would be deemed to have benefited from it and would probably end up pay a lot more than if they had agreed an endorsement deal in the first place.

 

[antropy]

Always ask for permission first, even if it is your product. If they are a celebrity then it is likely they will have a publicist that says yes or no as to what gets reposted or shared that involves said person. Alex

 

[SEOpie]

Before this goes any further, it’s important to note here the difference between sharing and reposting an image. With the former, it is expected that this is a perfectly legal way of increasing exposure. With the latter you are using an image owned by somebody else without their permission.

Either way, if the owner asks for a shared post to be removed, then it’s fair to do so.

You are using someone else's photo without permission, to promote your clients product.
You are using someone else's likeness/celebrity to promote your clients product, without permission.

Again, the distinction between a shared and reposted image is important.

Our SM posting policies have been updated to be more semantically specific.

 

[CA85]

Not my area, but an interesting thread.

There are lots and lots (millions?) of photos and images uploaded, shared and reposted every day - how is this policed/managed in reality?

Going back to the initial question, if the image of the celeb is shared - without any comment about endorsement - how is this one share any different to the other 50k people who shared it?

 

[Mr D]

Not my area, but an interesting thread.

There are lots and lots (millions?) of photos and images uploaded, shared and reposted every day - how is this policed/managed in reality?

Going back to the initial question, if the image of the celeb is shared - without any comment about endorsement - how is this one share any different to the other 50k people who shared it?

The who.
That's what is different.
The OP is not the same as all 50k people.

 

[obscure]

The fact that the OPs clients are using the image to promote their business is what is different. Commercial use of copyright material without permission of payment makes people angry.

Also while the OP may not be explicitly stating any endorsement the reality is that they are implying one. They are using the persons celebrity to promote their business. These celebrities make their living from their image/personality/celebrity and aren't going to sit around while other businesses use it for free.

 

[ethical PR]

It was reposted on Instagram, where they originally posted it.


In my original post I offered limited information, to see what kind of response I would get. Now I’m offering more. I didn’t expect such a response, to be frank.

Anyway, it’s fine to say that, if there is a clear line here. But there isn’t. As far as I understand it, a photo is still owned by the person who took and uploaded it, but by uploading you are giving Insta or FB permission to control it. Hence it could be used for republishing.

Our policy is that if a celebrity has shared a photo of a product we (the company we represent) produce, then as long as we are not suggesting an endorsement, we can repost on the same platform. We would request permission to tag, or suggest endorsement as necessary.

There is a clear line. It’s just social media isn’t your area of expertise and therefore not something you should have taken on for your client.

Now you have damaged their reputation with the social media manager of a A star celeb who uses their product.

 

[SEOpie]

'Damaged' may be overstating things, as we have since discussed the matter with the SMM of said celebrity.

 

[SEOpie]

The fact that the OPs clients are using the image to promote their business is what is different. Commercial use of copyright material without permission of payment makes people angry.

And I am often the first to point this out. But that's also why it's important to note the distinction between 'sharing' a post and 'reposting' one.

 

[NickGrogan]

But that's also why it's important to note the distinction between 'sharing' a post and 'reposting' one.

What is the legal distinction between the two, can you link to the relevant act or cases?

This would be useful for everyone.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Trying to get my head round this.......?

So if I share a Facebook post that shows a world champion wearing one of our shirts in 2010, way before he became famous, and long before he got a contract with Nike, we are open to legal challenge?

 

[obscure]

Most social media is designed for sharing. The Terms of Service allow it and there is a built in process for doing it. What you aren't allowed to do is take an image from the social media platform and post it elsewhere (your website or a different social media platform) or take the image and repost it back to the service as if it was your own (not using the built in sharing).

However... that doesn't mean you can just share with impunity. While the UK does not have personal image right laws like the US it is possible for a celebrity to sue for passing off. A business, using someone's likeness to promote their business (which is what the OPs client is doing) opens themselves up to an expensive lawsuit for passing off.

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Most social media is designed for sharing. The Terms of Service allow it and there is a built in process for doing it. What you aren't allowed to do is take an image from the social media platform and post it elsewhere (your website or a different social media platform) or take the image and repost it back to the service as if it was your own (not using the built in sharing).

So how does that work if somebody posts an image which is subsequently, shared, re-shared multiple times?

 

[obscure]

So how does that work if somebody posts an image which is subsequently, shared, re-shared multiple times?

I am not sure what you are asking. Facebook etc have a sharing mechanism that maintains a link back to the original posting. "Bob shared Dave's image". So the ownership link is maintained and you are just showing it to others. It doesn't matter how many time's it is reshared it keeps the original link.

 

[paulears]

The key feature is not the terms sharing or re-posting it is the determination of the word 'publisher'. This is what triggers any legal action, because that is the term that needs permission.

Uploading an image in a digital format to the internet as a whole, not just on social media is publishing. Same with video and audio. You are 'the publisher'. That is it. The question is then around permissions. The image was not your property, so did you have the rights to publish it. You can search for case law on this and find quite a bit if you need proof. When you 'share' on social media, you are not a publisher at all - you are providing a link. Maybe even a link to a link. Somewhere the image will be published. The owner of the image has rights and these are protected and the unapproved publisher gets the hassle. Dan's right in how he describes links. With celebrates, their public image is controlled. I've had them march up to me and demand images be removed from Facebook because the person who put them up (working for me) did not have permission. In their contract with me, they may well have a clause that gives them the right to approve all images of them published by the company. In reality, I cannot control what people do on Facebook. I can ban them from putting images of the production on Facebook, but legally I doubt that would hold water as a blanket 'can't do'. Occasionally I have issues where Facebook has a very innocent shot, but includes in the background items of equipment that we have signed confidentiality agreements covering - so I have to get people to remove these images. It's a nightmare to be honest. Very often the owners of this sensitive equipment make facebook friends with people likely to do this kind of thing accidentally, so they can monitor their facebook - then I get the email "Jane Smith has posted a picture showing the XYZ - please get it removed".Happens all the time and is perfectly normal now - making me the Copyright Policeman. I get the same from the celebrities, who happily posed for the picture in a nightclub, then when they saw it, hated it and get me to talk to the person who took it to remove it - often using ME as the reason, not them. I have no power to make them do it of course, but I have to try.