When Camera Stores Steal Photos

janrzm

janrzm

Established
Local time
11:50 AM
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
194
Hi

I guess many of us have experienced a form of image theft at some stage.

I had a recent experience which involved a camera store, you can read about in more detail here - http://aperturepriority.co.nz/2014/10/18/camera-stores-steal-photos/

I was certainly more annoyed by this than anything I've previously experienced, I think because most of the time we consider ourselves to be partners with camera stores and related businesses.

Cheers, Jason.
 
I had this happen a few years ago when I discovered that Luigi of camera case fame had a picture I had taken of an M5 in one of his cases on his site. He did apologise when it was pointed out and did have the decency to list me as the originator of the image but I was surprised none the less.
 
Um, can I point out how crazy this REALLY is? You've taken a straight up photo of someone else's industrial design for a consumer product (E. Leitz, Inc's protected and long trademarked design for a camera), adding very little in terms of interpretation, and you're claiming offense someone filched it? Gimme a break. What did you contribute to the image? Isn't your outrage a bit much?
 
sdotkling said:
Um, can I point out how crazy this REALLY is? You've taken a straight up photo of someone else's industrial design for a consumer product (E. Leitz, Inc's protected and long trademarked design for a camera), adding very little in terms of interpretation, and you're claiming offense someone filched it? Gimme a break. What did you contribute to the image? Isn't your outrage a bit much?
Click to expand...

Um indeed.

Whilst I welcome your viewpoint, I question your thought process.

To use your own words "You've taken a straight up photo" key word there being "you've". The photograph is mine and your argument is nonsense.

"What did I contribute to the image??" Seriously......

Had I taken a photo of a person with a recognisable make of motor vehicle in the foreground and an equally recognisable building in the background would I be any less the owner of that photograph?

Am I outraged, no, annoyed yes.
 
sdotkling said:
Um, can I point out how crazy this REALLY is? You've taken a straight up photo of someone else's industrial design for a consumer product (E. Leitz, Inc's protected and long trademarked design for a camera), adding very little in terms of interpretation, and you're claiming offense someone filched it? Gimme a break. What did you contribute to the image? Isn't your outrage a bit much?
Click to expand...

The angle, the composition and the light. I take pictures of my lenses, thinking of them as magnificent works of design. I take time to set up my shots, use flashes, backdrops .etc.

I don't think the OP has gone to quite such ends, but I would surely be pissed if someone used an image from me this way, and I understand his feelings completely.
 
Well, when you pointed out their mistake, they did change the picture. You didn't get an apology, but some people simply aren't apologetic. The real question is why did they use that picture in the first place, did you ask?

BTW, it seems your picture is popular in the Spanish speaking world ;)
 
janrzm, welcome to the new age of misbehavior. People don't put a value on this kind of thing anymore. Even photographers! To argue it's okay to take someone's photo because it's of an object shot without a lot of interpretation (but with beautiful light) is hooey. However, the best you can do in this situation is ask for a © photo credit. Getting upset isn't worth it. Put something online and expect it to get taken.
 
janrzm said:
Had I taken a photo of a person with a recognisable make of motor vehicle in the foreground and an equally recognisable building in the background would I be any less the owner of that photograph?
Click to expand...

In that case, yes. You added a person, and a car and, presumably, a conscious reason to put them in front of a particular building. Now it's yours. Contrast that with your photo of someone's product on a flat surface, sans a any additional information.

A credit would have been appropriate, which is what the shot is worth.

When I used to buy stock art for a magazine, I'd become enraged by the gall of the stock houses that would offer chromes of public domain museum art--the Mona Lisa, for instance--and claim copyright to the image (and charge thousands for the rights). As if they did anything except point a camera at someone else's work. Maybe this was worth real money in the days of wet plates when the photographer actually expended energy and skill, but today? Such a photo is worth the effort that went into it: a click.
 
sdotkling said:
Um, can I point out how crazy this REALLY is? You've taken a straight up photo of someone else's industrial design for a consumer product (E. Leitz, Inc's protected and long trademarked design for a camera), adding very little in terms of interpretation, and you're claiming offense someone filched it? Gimme a break. What did you contribute to the image? Isn't your outrage a bit much?
Click to expand...
Maybe you should re-read the post. He took a photo illustrating that camera in a Luigi case. So the photo wasn't primarily of the camera but of the case. He also put the artisitic aspect into it, to whatever extent you consider that meritworthy. Seems Mr Luigi could easily have taken said photo himself but he didn't.

I don't profess to be a copyright lawyer but as I understand it the person who takes the photo is generally the owner of that work and has a legal right to control its use. There are exceptions and (I believe) that simply taking a photo of (say) the Mona Lisa does not entitle you to copyright. The work has to be new and not a close or slavish copy of previous work.

All that said, in the days of downloads, screen-grabs and the internet, I would realistically only expect to retain control of a physical image that I do not put online in any form. Most people consider anything on the internet as "fair game", whether that be a photo or other work.
 
I believe every Leica owner has right to take pictures of his own Leica stuff and post online, no matter if this industrial design or art deco. Right is included - considering how these things do cost.

Regarding photo store - being there, walk into, ask for a camera to handle and drop it, catching just before it hits floor and then offer - either they admit their fault and apologize or you'll try once more :angel:
 
sdotkling said:
In that case, yes. You added a person, and a car and, presumably, a conscious reason to put them in front of a particular building. Now it's yours. Contrast that with your photo of someone's product on a flat surface, sans a any additional information.

A credit would have been appropriate, which is what the shot is worth.

When I used to buy stock art for a magazine, I'd become enraged by the gall of the stock houses that would offer chromes of public domain museum art--the Mona Lisa, for instance--and claim copyright to the image (and charge thousands for the rights). As if they did anything except point a camera at someone else's work. Maybe this was worth real money in the days of wet plates when the photographer actually expended energy and skill, but today? Such a photo is worth the effort that went into it: a click.
Click to expand...

The fact that you have a photo website and zero understanding of copyright law as it pertains to photographers is mind boggling.
Unless of course, you are simply trolling.
 
You must assume that if you post a picture on the internet, someone somewhere someday will take it and repost it. Get annoyed but not shocked by that.

Philosophically, yeh, it's "theft", or a least "unauthorized use of a downsized, compressed copy", but hey, you put it out by the curb and left it there, so you can't be too outraged when it's gone in the morning.

Also, IMO, if you personally send someone a copy of a picture of a piece of camera gear, you are (again, IMO) implicitly allowing them to show it to people and repost it if they desire.

Put your name at the bottom as a semi-transparent overlay (easy and not very conspicuous). It won't "degrade" your image any more than downsizing it and saving as a 90% JPG viewed on a 100DPI monitor anyway.
 
I think most posters have missed the point of the article.

If a stranger steals your stuff that's one thing. If a close friend does that's another.

If a camera store appropriates your photo, it's more like the second, coz after all they supply photographers.
 
Welcome to the world of "social media!" This kind of thing can only get worse and unless you want to help finance your lawyer's next Mercedes, you'll have to lighten up and let it go...TW
 
Scrambler said:
I think most posters have missed the point of the article.

If a stranger steals your stuff that's one thing. If a close friend does that's another.

If a camera store appropriates your photo, it's more like the second, coz after all they supply photographers.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right.

Had it just appeared on some random website I would have still emailed them but I would not have mentioned it on here.

Why should you trust these people with your business if they disrespect the rights of photographers? Not only that their attitude in reply tells you more about them.

At least one of the replies to this thread I regard as crazy. The notion that there is some sort of invisible effort threshold under which an image is not yours because you did little more than press the shutter is ludicrous to say the least.

If I take a photograph that requires little effort I'm always happy with that!!
 
NY_Dan said:
janrzm, welcome to the new age of misbehavior. People don't put a value on this kind of thing anymore. Even photographers! To argue it's okay to take someone's photo because it's of an object shot without a lot of interpretation (but with beautiful light) is hooey. However, the best you can do in this situation is ask for a © photo credit. Getting upset isn't worth it. Put something online and expect it to get taken.
Click to expand...

It's not a "new age of misbehavior." Appropriation in society has been going for millennia, whether it's a direct copy or an 'interpretation.' I just think that it's easier and quicker to accomplish in the electronic age.

But nonetheless, it's something that has been hashed out both legally and morally for as long as I have been on the planet. Remember 'appropriation art?' Duchamp? Warhol? Koons? What about Levine and her famous photographs of famous photographs. Anyway, it's an interesting philosophical question that's never been concluded outside of some legal attempts as to what constitutes 'originality.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherrie_Levine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_%28art%29
 
When I give someone a photo, be it a darkroom print or an electronic file, I make it clear the photo is for personal use and not to be reprinted without my permission. Stuffy? Probably. Effective, probably not. But this is one reason I don't post photos I care about on the internet or any sharing site. People will steal; sadly, most who make off with a photo don't even think of it as stealing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom