Onko joku käyttänyt kuvaasi luvatta Facessa?

On käyttänyt ja olen mielissäni siitä, että kuvani ovat niin hyviä, että mut haluavat käyttää ja näyttää niitä. Minulle ei ole ollut kuvien käytöstä mitään haittaa.
Joku kyseli miksi näytän kuvia joita muut haluavat varastaa? Vastasin, että kaikki halukkaat saavat käyttää jos en erikseen kiellä

Miksi fb:n kannattaa laittaa kuvia joita pelkää muiden varastavan?
Entä jos joku varastaa sanoja joita olen kirjoittanu tai puhunut nettiin? Siinä menee ammattikirjoittajilta ja -puhujilta asiakkaat kun harrastelija polkee hintoja jakamalla sanojaan ilmaiseksi.

koskahan tulee eka oikeudenkäynti, jossa joku lahjaton canon-lispetti on pöllinyt jonkun muun kuvan ja laittabnut sen fb: ja sit joku mainostoimisto tms on ostanut kuvan FB:ltä ja sitten kuvan alkuperäinen omistaja haastaa oikeuteen.

http://petapixel.com/2015/05/21/richard-prince-selling-other-peoples-instagram-shots-without-permission-for-100k/

Italialainen oikeuslaitos otti kantaa Facebookissa julkaistujen kuvien käyttöoikeuksiin; sanomalehti tuomittiin kuvien kuvien luvattomasta julkaisusta.

“Posting photos on the Facebook page by the person who has taken "does not involve the complete sale of photographic rights". That required by section IX of the Rome Court , which in practice recognizes the copyright for the pictures posted on the social network.
Newspaper sentenced.
Freedom of use of the content posted by users by setting 'Publish' do not concerns the users’ rights covered by intellectual property , for which the only license is the non-exclusive, transferable, granted to Facebook "says the Court. Under this principle the author of some pictures, assisted by Studio Lipani Catricalà & Partners, won damages from a newspaper that had published the same photo without permission.
Moral and financial damages.
The section of the Capitoline Court, specialized in corporate and intellectual property, in fact, acknowledged the refundability of both the financial damage and moral damages related to the failure to recognize the paternity of the photographs and, therefore, established the 'existence of injury caused by the publication of the photos without permission and without the indication of his name.
Private shots become public.
The case stems from pictures posted on their Facebook page by a photographer, taken in a Roman nightclub. The photos were then appeared, unknown to the author, in a national newspaper in support of a series of newspaper articles, related to the phenomenon of frequenting nightclubs by persons of young age and subsequently re-used by some television programs of national importance.
Setting 'publish' does not give license to use.
The judgment first made clear that the publication of a photograph in the personal Facebook page, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is " a serious, precise and concordant presumption " of ownership of the photographic rights by the holder of the page in which it is published.
That said, the Court, after examining the license terms of Facebook, has stated that "the possibility of use of the information published by setting 'Publish' on the social network is not licensed for general use and exploitation of content covered by property rights in favor of any third party who accesses the Facebook page ". On the contrary, freedom of use "applies only to information and not the content, that is covered by intellectual property rights."