DMCA takdown notices

divewizard

divewizard

perspicaz
Local time
2:30 AM
Joined
Oct 28, 2010
Messages
833
I became curious a few weeks ago when LAtaco.com added me as a contact on flickr. I noticed a few days later that the web site is linked from the Huffington Post, so I went to check it out. and found one of my pictures being used. I did a IP lookup on the doain name and then a whois on the IP to see who own the block. I sent the owner of the IP block a DMCA takedown notice and my picture was removed the next day.

This evening I starting dropping copies of my images into Google image search and finding my images being used with out my permission on quite a few web sites.
I just spent the last hour sending out DMCA takedown notices to various ISPs becasue I found more of my images being used without my permission. The google search is quite good becasue it found cropped versions of my photos with my © removed.



Here is an example of one of the notices:



DMCA Takedown Notice

This is a good faith request for you to take down the website http://atlosangeles.com [50.61.226.54] which is using my original image Crusty Crab without my permission. It appears on http://atlosangeles.com/category/food.aspx & http://atlosangeles.com/2012/02/default.aspx

The photo was taken from my Flickr account. The original can be seen at http://www.flickr.com/photos/divewizard/6549673713

My name and copyright appear both in the lower right hand corner of the original photo and in the embedded EXIF information. I am the photographer and copyright owner of the photograph of Crusty Crab.

Under penalty of perjury I state that all of the information contained in this notification is accurate.

Thank You,
Chris Grossman
address
email
phone #
signature scan
 
if they don't link to the original source (you) or are using it commercially, you're absolutely right to do what you're doing. if not (tumblr reblogs etc.), it's within the unwritten internet codex, in fact, it would be good "publicity".

personally, I wouldn't make too big a deal out of the little fishes (such as small private blogs), just ask them to include a link or something if it bothers you. as for the bigger ones, go ahead.
 
Why do you care?

The commercial value of the images is close to zero.

I know you're all going to howl and protest, but so what? Is it such a big deal to you?

It's not like it is going to damage you in any way.

You made a photo of someone else's image, the painted sign. Should the sign painter sue you?
 
I Love Film said:
Why do you care?

The commercial value of the images is close to zero.

I know you're all going to howl and protest, but so what? Is it such a big deal to you?

It's not like it is going to damage you in any way.

You made a photo of someone else's image, the painted sign. Should the sign painter sue you?
Click to expand...

How would you feel if I came by your place and took a dollar or two every day without you knowing ?

Theft is theft just because we are on the Internet it does not mean we can use and abuse other peoples intellectual property.
 
It is a photo of a painted sign. Someone else painted the sign.

Did the photographer "steal" the painter's work? You need to apply some common sense and sense of reality.

The commercial value of the image is zero.
 
karlori said:
How would you feel if I came by your place and took a dollar or two every day without you knowing ?

Theft is theft just because we are on the Internet it does not mean we can use and abuse other peoples intellectual property.
Click to expand...

for this metaphor to work, chris would first have to make one or two dollars with his photo every day. does he? I don't know.

a photo is not equal to money, even if in some circumstances, you can make money with it.

a few of my photos are all over tumblr and whatnot without my permission. that is -in theory- against the law (in germany / EU at least, even when linked to the source), but so long as there is some sort of link back to me somewhere, or at least the mention of my name, why would I complain?

I'm inclined to agree with I Love Film, since there is hardly anything else in the picture but the sign, the sign almost IS the picture, which makes hardcore-copyright-complaints a little difficult, no?
 
I Love Film said:
It is a photo of a painted sign. Someone else painted the sign.

Did the photographer "steal" the painter's work? You need to apply some common sense and sense of reality.

The commercial value of the image is zero.
Click to expand...

If a business has stolen the image to use on their website, then they believe that the commercial value of the image is in fact non-zero.
 
SimonSawSunlight said:
for this metaphor to work, chris would first have to make one or two dollars with his photo every day. does he? I don't know.

a photo is not equal to money, even if in some circumstances, you can make money with it.

a few of my photos are all over tumblr and whatnot without my permission. that is -in theory- against the law (in germany / EU at least, even when linked to the source), but so long as there is some sort of link back to me somewhere, or at least the mention of my name, why would I complain?

I'm inclined to agree with I Love Film, since there is hardly anything else in the picture than the sign, the sign almost is the picture, which makes hardcore-copyright-complaints a little difficult, no?
Click to expand...

I maybe a bit bitter regarding this subject as out of some 10-20 digital images i posted online 2 of them were put on websites with huge daily traffic. With my signature cloned out.
Can't really not be subjective on it then because one of the images was on a government site and when i requested a linkback or at least credits the image was removed without any written confirmation or anything.
 
karlori said:
I maybe a bit bitter regarding this subject as out of some 10-20 digital images i posted online 2 of them were put on websites with huge daily traffic. With my signature cloned out.
Can't really not be subjective on it then because one of the images was on a government site and when i requested a linkback or at least credits the image was removed without any written confirmation or anything.
Click to expand...

as always, the answer is probably "it depends".
 
You can come up with all sorts of hypothetical situations, but the reality is that the image is worth nothing and no damage has occurred.

The amateur photographer assigns all sorts of fantastic values and qualities to his "work" that simply doesn't exist.

I ask again, why do you care? So what? In what way have you been injured, except for your ego?
 
I Love Film said:
You can come up with all sorts of hypothetical situations, but the reality is that the image is worth nothing and no damage has occurred.

The amateur photographer assigns all sorts of fantastic values and qualities to his "work" that simply doesn't exist.

I ask again, why do you care? So what? In what way have you been injured, except for your ego?
Click to expand...

Why do you care ? Why keep coming back to the subject and insist that the OP is an amateur ( person who never made money of his photos) ? And that the photos might or are worthless...

There are people who value their work, its not the ego being hurt it has all to do with the mentality of people online taking everything available as fair game which it isn't...
 
I'm not insisting anything.

Yes, people value their work. Please tell me the value of a picture of a painted sign, painted by someone else, in which the painted sign fills the whole frame.

You feel that everything isn't fair game. OK, so if that is your argument, what does the photographer "owe" the sign painter. The photograph was outright theft of his work, according to your definition.

Should the photographer find the sign painter, or the owner of the restaurant, and mail him a check?
 
pinkarmy said:
and if my photo sucks then it means everybody can rip me off?
Click to expand...

Seems so...

I Love Film said:
I'm not insisting anything.

Yes, people value their work. Please tell me the value of a picture of a painted sign, painted by someone else, in which the painted sign fills the whole frame.

You feel that everything isn't fair game. OK, so if that is your argument, what does the photographer "owe" the sign painter. The photograph was outright theft of his work, according to your definition.

Should the photographer find the sign painter, or the owner of the restaurant, and mail him a check?
Click to expand...

The value is that of what a currently interested party is ready to pay for work...
Do tell me would you react the same way as with the million dollar prints we discussed some time ago ?
The waterline print sucks more than the worst photo in OP's flickr stream ....
Who says the photographer is not also a stencil artist and did not paint the sign himself ?;)
 
If you want to play "reductio ad absurdum", how do you know the original photo was taken by the OP and not someone else holding his camera?

Or that he didn't take a photo of another photo.

Now you're trying to be clever, but you are avoiding the question of "what is the photo worth".

The answer to which is "nothing". The value of a worthless photo increases proportionately with the size of the photographer's ego and sense of entitlement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom