Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here's the latest copyright violation to hit discussion groups on the web. .
http://www.petapixel.com/2013/03/05...th-radio-station-over-copyright-infringement/
What interests me is how all of you choose to protect (or choose not to protect) your pictures on the web. It's an almost impossible situation. Many of us have had pictures stolen. Quite often, legal action is going to cost you as much, if not more, as any settlement. Of course, you can make the image so small and of such low quality that no one can use it, but that also makes an image you are proud of look like crap. Does anybody have the answer?
http://www.petapixel.com/2013/03/05...th-radio-station-over-copyright-infringement/
What interests me is how all of you choose to protect (or choose not to protect) your pictures on the web. It's an almost impossible situation. Many of us have had pictures stolen. Quite often, legal action is going to cost you as much, if not more, as any settlement. Of course, you can make the image so small and of such low quality that no one can use it, but that also makes an image you are proud of look like crap. Does anybody have the answer?
Bill Clark
Veteran
I don't have any photographs on the web,
except my avitar here. If you copy it, then make a print, put the print down in your basement, you'll never have a mouse in your home again.
Clients like this policy. Many of them hire me & negotiate my mug photo to rid their homes of mice!
except my avitar here. If you copy it, then make a print, put the print down in your basement, you'll never have a mouse in your home again.
Clients like this policy. Many of them hire me & negotiate my mug photo to rid their homes of mice!
Murchu
Well-known
Quite the murky issue. I think you can post only low res images, limiting the damage if they are stolen, but even then that damage limitation is restricted to print usage and not online usage, where even that low res image may be perfectly fine for website usage. Only a visible copyright/ watermark would seem to get around that, but then that is not aesthetically ideal either.
Go down the route of posting high res copies of images online, knowing they may very well be stolen, but accepting that as the price of increased online exposure, is another way to go, but even then images quickly lose any attribution to the photographer and all that exposure may be for nought if no one knows you are the photographer.
Not sure what the answer is, but then I also accept my own thinking on the issue may need to evolve too, as the game has changed, and the rules that worked/ protected before, do not do so anymore.
Go down the route of posting high res copies of images online, knowing they may very well be stolen, but accepting that as the price of increased online exposure, is another way to go, but even then images quickly lose any attribution to the photographer and all that exposure may be for nought if no one knows you are the photographer.
Not sure what the answer is, but then I also accept my own thinking on the issue may need to evolve too, as the game has changed, and the rules that worked/ protected before, do not do so anymore.
Bill Pierce
Well-known
nparsons13
Well-known
And book authors and publishers continue to have problems as well--particularly if the author is deceased and there are no easily located heirs. See the current discussion Maizenberg Book, http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129890, in the FSU Former Soviet Union RF forum.
Jamie123
Veteran
I did see that article, too, and while the radio station is obviously in the wrong, the photographer handled this very poorly. Let's be honest, this was a fairly harmless case of infringement compared to other cases that are in the news. The photo was used in an internal PowerPoint presentation for a pitch. Technically they could've just inserted a link to the picture and it wouldn't have been infringement at all. If the photographer had been a bit more diplomatic and reasonable she might've been able to walk away with a decent amount of money.
As for the basic question of how to cope with the problem of copyright infringement, I see it this way. It's sort of like a pick-your-own flowers field where the payment is based on trust in the honesty of people. You know some people are going to steal flowers if you do it that way but if you build a fence around the field and hire people to protect it, you're not gonna make any money. So you just live with fact that flowers are going to get stolen every now and then and when you find out about it you deal with it accordingly.
Murchu
Well-known
presspass
filmshooter
The obvious answer, and one I use, is don't post on the web. Unfortunate, but that's the way it is. I share prints - all RC Ilford - with friends and post them in the community, including the post office and the fire station [with permission, of course]. I will give prints away to people who ask, but I see no reason to encourage thieves.
x-ray
Veteran
Don't post on the web then there's no exposure for potential sales.
I did a series of documentary image over a three year period of the moonshiner Popcorn Sutton. Popcorn took his life rather than go to prison for the third time. He gained a great deal of attention and the day before killing himself sold his name and and process to a distillery.
Over the three year period I made hundreds of B&W images that have become very high demand images. I sell use regularly to numerous publications like Maxxim, New York Times and Gourmet Magazine to mention a few. Im negotiating with a restaurant chain at the moment to sell images to decorate the bar in their restaurants. I've sold them to other restaurant / bars as well.
Let me say my images are registered with the only right office so I can legally take action if needed.
No web exposure, no exposure to sales. On the web images are vulnerable to theft. If you're on the web and you have images people want they will most certainly take them.
I regularly do searches on eBay, YouTube and other sites an find my images all the time. I've found three companies, one US, one in Italy and one in the UK making T shirts with images taken from the web or simply scanned from magazines I've licensed to use them. I've found several professional music videos including a Grand Old Opry Star using them. This one I thought I was going to have to take to court but the musicians manager got the images pulled.
I've found people making greeting cards , buttons and other items. I also found two billboards with the images. In both cases I collected compensation and in every other case was able to stop the reproduction of my images.
Unfortunately if you want exposure and want to sell your images you have to take the risk and spend substantial time catching people who use them illegally. You also need to register your work and get an attorney and use the legal system if needed.
I recently busted two individuals reproducing prints and selling them through flea markets. Unfortunately people and companies don't understand copyright. They think if it's on the web it's free to use.