Bill Pierce
Well-known
A great many search engines have a component for searching images and displaying them, among them the Big Boys - Google, Yahoo and Bing. The court has decided that such a display of photographs, even copyrighted ones, is legal, not a violation of copyright, but fair use. If the search engines can’t help you track down a larger image to steal, the Google thumbnail from the search is perfectly adequate for web use.
Most of the professional photographers I have asked have had images stolen. So have a number of accomplished non professionals with a web presence. Sad that an age where computers let us share our pictures, they also make us open to theft. Any thoughts?
Most of the professional photographers I have asked have had images stolen. So have a number of accomplished non professionals with a web presence. Sad that an age where computers let us share our pictures, they also make us open to theft. Any thoughts?
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I guess it might depend on what exactly one is doing with the stolen image...
I have recently looked for and found a picture of a Bobcat to show people just what was in our front yard...since I wasn't able to photograph nor did I have my own photo I needed to find one...I posted it on Facebook with the disclaimer that this was not my picture but one I found and that it wasn't the actual cat in our yard...
I guess I don't have a problem with doing that...I couldn't give the photographer credit because there wasn't any mention of who shot it...
Now, I would never use a found image for the cover of some book I might write someday...that is different...
I have had someone use one of my images to promote an event and I was never asked permission...I just happened to come across it looking for something else...now that same image is being used for the same event but I have been asked permission this time...
Here it is...
I have recently looked for and found a picture of a Bobcat to show people just what was in our front yard...since I wasn't able to photograph nor did I have my own photo I needed to find one...I posted it on Facebook with the disclaimer that this was not my picture but one I found and that it wasn't the actual cat in our yard...
I guess I don't have a problem with doing that...I couldn't give the photographer credit because there wasn't any mention of who shot it...
Now, I would never use a found image for the cover of some book I might write someday...that is different...
I have had someone use one of my images to promote an event and I was never asked permission...I just happened to come across it looking for something else...now that same image is being used for the same event but I have been asked permission this time...
Here it is...
KM-25
Well-known
Yeah...after a rash of thefts in 2006-08 I pulled my entire public web presence down and went pretty much underground with password protection & direct mail. I have had only one image lifted since via a client not keeping track of it and that was resolved without legal proceedings.
I might lose a bit of viral marketing effectiveness by keeping it all on the down low, but the peace of mind and much reduced chance of a theft is *well* worth it....
kuuan
loves old lenses
A number of photos of mine, even though all say "all rights reserved" and I have never been asked for permission, appear or had appeared on websites.
My first reaction was negative, but in the end, of course as long as it is for a non profitable site, I am ok with it as long as the pic is credited to me which is not always the case. Actually I'd be glad if I knew that someone liked a pic of mine that much that he downloaded it, printed it out and hung it on his wall. Doubtful that this ever happened, if so certainly I'd prefer to be asked before, that did happen once
If it was a profit oriented site I ask for either payment or to take the pic down, only the later ever has happened.
My first reaction was negative, but in the end, of course as long as it is for a non profitable site, I am ok with it as long as the pic is credited to me which is not always the case. Actually I'd be glad if I knew that someone liked a pic of mine that much that he downloaded it, printed it out and hung it on his wall. Doubtful that this ever happened, if so certainly I'd prefer to be asked before, that did happen once
If it was a profit oriented site I ask for either payment or to take the pic down, only the later ever has happened.
Corran
Well-known
I am much more offended when a photograph I made finds its way to the local newspaper and is credited to the newspaper's photographer! Yes this happened.
The time I spend worrying about someone "stealing" my image by using it on their social media account (the most common event) is better spent shooting/printing. It's certainly not the right thing to do, but making enemies or at least making people uncomfortable by shouting about it doesn't help anyone. Larger affronts are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Usually the addition of a photo credit is all I want.
The time I spend worrying about someone "stealing" my image by using it on their social media account (the most common event) is better spent shooting/printing. It's certainly not the right thing to do, but making enemies or at least making people uncomfortable by shouting about it doesn't help anyone. Larger affronts are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Usually the addition of a photo credit is all I want.
NY_Dan
Well-known
I put my name on the bottom of all my photos that I post. Unfortunately, most big-boy sites strip your meta data. They don't care if your work is viewed as orphaned. Even before the Internet, big-boys, publishers turned to photographers as a place to pinch pennies. Good photography takes talent, and talentless people will always hate those who have it. Also, poorer people are generally better tippers. So, if you post you're toast.
willie_901
Veteran
The only defense (and it is a meager defense at best) is to display images with less than 1200 pixels across the longest dimensions. Some people use less pixels. This means image usage is restricted to device-screen display.
Some people use a large watermark. I find this destroys the images' aesthetics.
Some people use a large watermark. I find this destroys the images' aesthetics.
willie_901
Veteran
Register your copyright on-line before publishing the image and the local paper will stop stealing from you. If their attorney's aren't morons, they will pay you promptly once they realize they stole a copyright registered image.
You right to compensation increases dramatically when someone steals a copyright registered image. If you put a small copyright watermark on the image's corner and they publish a cropped version, the potential compensation level increases even more.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
Alex Wild has spoken out on the practicality of copyright enforcement. What he has to say is interesting and useful.
http://petapixel.com/2015/04/03/so-...tos-without-permission-what-next/#more-162502
http://petapixel.com/2015/04/03/so-...tos-without-permission-what-next/#more-162502
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Involving a specialized legal company like imagerights.com may be of interest to a very small category of professional photographers, only. Of little interest to me and I'd assume of little interest to the majority of photography enthusiasts on this forum.
Corran
Well-known
Thank you for your suggestions. I really do not have time to register the tens of thousands of images I take a year for local events and such. The situation I mentioned was rectified without legal recourse.
The photos I take are usually published with my consent by local agencies on their own sites. The local newspaper was bad about lifting them without notice until I made it an issue.
Having a registered copyright does speed up the process of a claim but I'm not in the business of licensing/stock. The one or two claims I might have a year would not cover the cost of the extra time it would take to register everything.
presspass
filmshooter
I regularly post images on the website for our local newspaper, knowing that some will be taken from the site. If I have images I don't want stolen, I don't post them. That's the easy way to avoid having a photograph taken and used for whatever purpose. Perhaps that's selfish, but if I want to share a photo with someone, I make a print and give it to them.
noisycheese
Normal(ish) Human
What Willie said.
And the article posted by Bill ( http://petapixel.com/2015/04/03/so-...tos-without-permission-what-next/#more-162502 ) is a good read.
If a corporation steals your work, get your attorney to make them pay you - and him.
Most important of all, don't take it personally. In the business world of today, a lot of corporations - if not most - are run by greedy, unethical, arrogant psychopaths who lie to, cheat and steal from anyone and everyone.
It's not personal, it's "just business." It's "for the good of the company."
YMMV.
OP, I allow unlimited free educational and editorial use of all my photos. Does not bother me at all.
But, if you that you may run into trouble if they use a bad copy of your work and it shows up in your image search.
See the steeplechase shot circled in red
nsfw
http://testarchives.tumblr.com/image/113035786794
They used a dark copy of it I don't like. Although my license says no mods, it sometimes does not come out that way.
The green circled pix is another photogs work. I left a comment on his blog now his work shows up in my images. Shows we have to be careful with using our name online.
We should be Googling our name routinely to see the image search. Only your best work should be associated with your name.
But, if you that you may run into trouble if they use a bad copy of your work and it shows up in your image search.
See the steeplechase shot circled in red
nsfw
http://testarchives.tumblr.com/image/113035786794
They used a dark copy of it I don't like. Although my license says no mods, it sometimes does not come out that way.
The green circled pix is another photogs work. I left a comment on his blog now his work shows up in my images. Shows we have to be careful with using our name online.
We should be Googling our name routinely to see the image search. Only your best work should be associated with your name.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
The New World
The New World
If you have ever watched cable television or visited the internet
you will see that copyright has not been so much abadoned or ignored, but is being constantly redefined.
As a songwriter I am a member of ASCAP, and the organization publishes a daily brief that is usually about nothing but copyright concerns.
Copyright is a given, but registering one just gives the additional right to sue for damages. Today the cost of bringing a copyright issue to court costs $100,000 up from $30,000 just a few years ago.
When I mentioned 'redefined' that is because Fair Use is becoming fair game. Fair Use does not trump copyright but it makes defining it much harder.
I make 'poor man's videos' for the songs are write. My songs are educational, comedy, and social commentary.
There could be no news, or comedy on the networks without fair use protection.
Here is a link to my latest video. I take no credit for any of the images, but as the video is educational and was to be in support of an ALS campaign I have harmed no one.
Go ahead, call me a thief. I only claim credit for the music and the music production. Please take three minutes to watch.
http://youtu.be/yU2U4H_iXQo
The New World
If you have ever watched cable television or visited the internet
you will see that copyright has not been so much abadoned or ignored, but is being constantly redefined.
As a songwriter I am a member of ASCAP, and the organization publishes a daily brief that is usually about nothing but copyright concerns.
Copyright is a given, but registering one just gives the additional right to sue for damages. Today the cost of bringing a copyright issue to court costs $100,000 up from $30,000 just a few years ago.
When I mentioned 'redefined' that is because Fair Use is becoming fair game. Fair Use does not trump copyright but it makes defining it much harder.
I make 'poor man's videos' for the songs are write. My songs are educational, comedy, and social commentary.
There could be no news, or comedy on the networks without fair use protection.
Here is a link to my latest video. I take no credit for any of the images, but as the video is educational and was to be in support of an ALS campaign I have harmed no one.
Go ahead, call me a thief. I only claim credit for the music and the music production. Please take three minutes to watch.
http://youtu.be/yU2U4H_iXQo
presspass
filmshooter
Seems to me the person who should define 'harm' is the person who made the image, not the person who chose to use it.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
About 4 years ago I was shooting for a publication and they had us upload the images to a special Flicker account (instead of an FTP) that was supposed to be secure. It wasn't. A number of my shots were taken from that account and used by other publications. So I told the original publication to get an FTP if they wanted me to shoot anything else for them.
It would be nice if everyone honored copyright, but it ain't gonna happen. Anything I post anywhere online I consider "given away" as it is so easy to steal and so hard to get compensation.
It would be nice if everyone honored copyright, but it ain't gonna happen. Anything I post anywhere online I consider "given away" as it is so easy to steal and so hard to get compensation.
Dektol Dan
Well-known
Harm
Harm
Harm is a legal term. Right wrong is not. Although common sense is often a legal plea it is not a legal term either.
When it comes to harm that means measurable loss. The value of that is not what the poor artist can pull out of the air. The value of promotion is where things get very gamey. Did the person who used your images promote you on the way to his profit?
It seems like people who can make money from marketing (advertising) are the real sharks. Often they offer the artist a token. The hard part is not so much obtaining permission for use, but the value of that.
Copyright is not love and war, but now that the digital world is moving us away from print, all is fair: whether one has a patent or not, the person gets to market successfully usually wins because he can afford the fight.
I've stopped whining about my copyrights being compromised long ago, and I've given up trying to weigh the of advantages and disadvantages of the net.
Move on! Only 1 in 1000 can make it the arts.
My suggestion is to work as hard, and be as productive as you can, to get ahead of the game.
Harm
Harm is a legal term. Right wrong is not. Although common sense is often a legal plea it is not a legal term either.
When it comes to harm that means measurable loss. The value of that is not what the poor artist can pull out of the air. The value of promotion is where things get very gamey. Did the person who used your images promote you on the way to his profit?
It seems like people who can make money from marketing (advertising) are the real sharks. Often they offer the artist a token. The hard part is not so much obtaining permission for use, but the value of that.
Copyright is not love and war, but now that the digital world is moving us away from print, all is fair: whether one has a patent or not, the person gets to market successfully usually wins because he can afford the fight.
I've stopped whining about my copyrights being compromised long ago, and I've given up trying to weigh the of advantages and disadvantages of the net.
Move on! Only 1 in 1000 can make it the arts.
My suggestion is to work as hard, and be as productive as you can, to get ahead of the game.
presspass
filmshooter
Agree, Dektol Dan. And don't put anything on the net you don't want take for 'fair use' or, in plain English, stolen.