Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: jjj on March 06, 2009, 06:52:26 am
-
I just discovered that one of the big European newpapers has had a gallery of my images online for the last 18months or so.
I only found out as they were all credited accurately, ironically with copyright clearly ascribed to me. Yet I knew nothing about them being used.
Has anyone here had this happen and what steps did they take?
-
I just discovered that one of the big European newpapers has had a gallery of my images online for the last 18months or so.
I only found out as they were all credited accurately, ironically with copyright clearly ascribed to me. Yet I knew nothing about them being used.
Has anyone here had this happen and what steps did they take?
It all depends on your country's laws. I would consult a lawyer and file a legal complaint against them. Here in Switzerland I would probably be screwed…
-
If the pictures are properly credited and they're not being sold, I don't see how it falls under the category of theft; they're just displaying them without permission. Call the paper and tell them you want the pictures taken down. If you enjoy the company of lawyers, you should probably consult one. Here in the U.S., it's highly likely that all you'd wind up with is a legal bill and a bad taste in your mouth. Unless the copyright is registered with the U.S. Patent Office, all you're entitled to are actual damages, (no legal fees or punitive damages) and if the offending publication doesn't ordinarily pay a fee for such displays, it's a lousy bet that there will be any damages to collect that are worth the hassle. If this is the worst thing that happens to you, consider yourself lucky. Anything you post online is going to be copied and used by somebody, somewhere. If you're putting high-quality images on the internet, it's like leaving your wallet on a park bench and expecting it to be there when you get back.
Peter J
-
Ask for a link back to your site and another to your email address. That way you get traffic and sales (if you have a commercial site). It's a win win situation. If they refuse, then ask that your photographs be removed from their site.
-
If the pictures are properly credited and they're not being sold, I don't see how it falls under the category of theft; they're just displaying them without permission.
Duh! Theft is taking things without permission. If they had asked me to use them, I would have sold them a licence to use it. So they have stole them. Would you describe shoplifting as simply borrowing things without permission?
-
Ask for a link back to your site and another to your email address. That way you get traffic and sales (if you have a commercial site). It's a win win situation. If they refuse, then ask that your photographs be removed from their site.
As I charge from reproduction, all that may do is increase the amount of image theft from my sites.
I am about to put some new sites online and was debating about watermarking. I think this has simply decided for me.
-
Duh! Theft is taking things without permission. If they had asked me to use them, I would have sold them a licence to use it. So they have stole them. Would you describe shoplifting as simply borrowing things without permission?
I know we're talking about legal semantics, but what you are describing is copyright infringement. Theft would imply you have been deprived of the goods - which is impossible with digital data unless they pilfer your RAWs along with your hard disk.
Funny (?) aside: in Finland the legal term for stealing a car translates roughly to "unauthorized commandeering." No, I'm not kidding. I don't know exactly at what point it becomes theft, though. I guess stealing cars for drunken joyrides are so widespread they had to make a distinction to avoid putting too many people behind bards...
But I agree with Alain: just request politely for linkback while reminding you hold the copyright. Anything you put online will be copied, infringed upon, and used. But that only happens if the work is good enough - so there's your silver lining
-
Funny (?) aside: in Finland the legal term for stealing a car translates roughly to "unauthorized commandeering." No, I'm not kidding. I don't know exactly at what point it becomes theft, though. I guess stealing cars for drunken joyrides are so widespread they had to make a distinction to avoid putting too many people behind bards...
In the UK there's the term twocking. TWOC - Taking with out consent - otherwise known as joyriding. Not sure if the police still persist with the term as it was much derided when first used.
-
Duh! Nobody stole anything. Go buy yourself a dictionary.
-
Definitions and dictionaries may need updating in light of web commerce.
Duh! Nobody stole anything. Go buy yourself a dictionary.
-
Duh! Theft is taking things without permission. If they had asked me to use them, I would have sold them a licence to use it. So they have stole them. Would you describe shoplifting as simply borrowing things without permission?
I suggest being pragmatic. Yes, they "stole" your images by using them without your permission, but what harm has this done you? None - and in fact you may have benefited from the exposure. Do as someone else has suggested - call or email them, explain the situation, and agree for them to use the images if they link to your site.
Peter
-
I suggest being pragmatic. Yes, they "stole" your images by using them without your permission, but what harm has this done you? None - and in fact you may have benefited from the exposure. Do as someone else has suggested - call or email them, explain the situation, and agree for them to use the images if they link to your site.
Why should they be allowed to use my work without paying? This is a major national newpaper, with deep pockets who would be very annoyed and broke if people took copies off newstand without paying. I could argue that I could shoplift to make up for lack of earnings, as no-one actually is harmed by my actions.
I find it odd that some photographers seem to think it OK for big businesses to simply help themselves to photographer's work.
And no I haven't benefitted. Two reasons - I would have discovered the images earlier if they had gained me work, the only work I been asked to do from that country was from someone who saw my work in another country altogether.
Being pragmatic to my mind is charging them for the usage.
-
Why should they be allowed to use my work without paying? This is a major national newpaper, with deep pockets who would be very annoyed and broke if people took copies off newstand without paying. I could argue that I could shoplift to make up for lack of earnings, as no-one actually is harmed by my actions.
I find it odd that some photographers seem to think it OK for big businesses to simply help themselves to photographer's work.
And no I haven't benefitted. Two reasons - I would have discovered the images earlier if they had gained me work, the only work I been asked to do from that country was from someone who saw my work in another country altogether.
Being pragmatic to my mind is charging them for the usage.
Fine, if you want to get on your high horse and be all indignant about it, be my guest. I was not saying that what they did was right - clearly it was not - but I was suggesting that you do what's best for YOU, given the situation.
Also, if you really think that no one is harmed by shoplifting, I suggest you think again.
Peter
-
Also, if you really think that no one is harmed by shoplifting, I suggest you think again.
I don't think shoplifting is without effect - that was my point.
Fine, if you want to get on your high horse and be all indignant about it, be my guest..
And if you to be a patronising jerk.... oh you already are.
...but I was suggesting that you do what's best for YOU, given the situation.
What, let them get away with it? Fantastic advice. Not.
-
I don't think shoplifting is without effect - that was my point.
And if you to be a patronising jerk.... oh you already are.
What, let them get away with it? Fantastic advice. Not.
Sorry, I thought I was talking to an adult. My mistake.
Peter
-
On the internet image misappropriation is common. The challenge is finding if your images were used by someone without permission.
This site can help you find that out:
tineye.com/ (http://tineye.com/)
Upload or enter the link to one of your photographs and see what you find.
-
Sorry, I thought I was talking to an adult. My mistake.
Peter
Don't let it throw you Peter. He/she/it is one of those creatures that it just doesn't pay to be nice to. Count your blessings. How'd you like to live with someone like that?
Peter J
-
In the UK there's the term twocking. TWOC - Taking with out consent - otherwise known as joyriding. Not sure if the police still persist with the term as it was much derided when first used.
Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property. You were not deprived of property, permanently or transiently, and there was therefore no theft.
The offence of taking without owner's consent was developed because it was hard, if not impossible, to prove the necessary intent to prosecute joyriders for theft. They had no interest in whether the owner of the car recovered it.
You are the victim of copyright infringement, not theft. I'm not suggesting it hurts any less, but it usually pays to get the terminology right before considering what action to take.
Jeremy
-
On the internet image misappropriation is common. The challenge is finding if your images were used by someone without permission.
This site can help you find that out:
tineye.com/ (http://tineye.com/)
Ta, Alain, TinEye is a very clever tool, but has not yet managed to index enough of the web yet to be definitive. Plus, I think flash imagery may be invisible to it.
-
Sorry, I thought I was talking to an adult. My mistake.
Well, why were you talking to me like a naughty child then?
Hence the patronising comment.
-
Don't let it throw you Peter. He/she/it is one of those creatures that it just doesn't pay to be nice to. Count your blessings. How'd you like to live with someone like that?
He wasn't being nice, he was being patronising there's a difference.
And will certainly admit to not suffering fools gladly.
-
On the internet image misappropriation is common. The challenge is finding if your images were used by someone without permission.
This site can help you find that out:
tineye.com/ (http://tineye.com/)
Upload or enter the link to one of your photographs and see what you find.
I was almost amazed, until I tried it and got the "zero results" counter. Here's a quote from the website:
"TinEye looks for the specific image you uploaded, not the content of the image."
So if they can't ID on content (sigh) then all the thief has to do is rename the file? I must be missing something.
-
Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of the property. You were not deprived of property, permanently or transiently, and there was therefore no theft.
Will the Photographer be able to license any of those images as exclusive? That is depriving him of a source of income. What if the photographer didn't want his work associated with that publication? Would you want your images published on a right wing publication with stories about zero need for environmental protection with a gallery of your landscapes next to it? Quite frankly my bet is if a publication were to stoop to this level I would almost for sure not want my name associated with them. And I'll take all the help I can get.
"dishonest appropriation of property" How can not informing "asking" the photographer or author not be dishonest appropriation, especially when they have the photographer's name? Newspapers & magazines are very professional they deal with licensing content every day of the week to think it's an oversight is not even naive it's self blinded. they were counting on the photographer to have the same ill informed opinion as most people who don't value their work. "Ohh it's just good publicity" Having hundreds of images published and talking with many very successful photographers this is just not the case unless the publication it self is of stature a byline is just not going to bring in work and should not be considered adequate compensation for usage.
The sad fact is there is nothing a photographer can do as a photographer he must seek counsel and ask himself if he is prepared to be David against Goliath? But I must say i am just so incredibly astonished by a lot of the replies this board gets on this subject?
-
The sad fact is there is nothing a photographer can do as a photographer he must seek counsel and ask himself if he is prepared to be David against Goliath? But I must say i am just so incredibly astonished by a lot of the replies this board gets on this subject?
This is a sad fact of life in the online world - the copyright infringement, not the childish name calling. And legally it's not theft, like the man said it's a copyright infringement. You still have the image to exploit in any way you see fit.
Send them an invoice, don't ask first, just invoice them for use of n images for x months, say US100 per image per year. They might even pay you, it has worked for me in the past.
If they don't pay then maybe insist on removing the image, but you have zero chance of any compensation because you have suffered no demonstrable damage. Only where there has been actual and provable commercial damage is there any point in lawyering up. Culprit will often also simply claim 'fair use' since they credited image correctly.
It's actually cost you nothing, so far, and will likely happen again. No-one is condoning it, certainly not me, but it's happened enough to me not to lose sleep or get my dudgeon up over such annoyances.
Ask yourself this - is it possible you could have benefited in some way from such exposure on a major newspaper's website? If you have a list of clients or published work, adding a named major newspaper cannot hurt.
-
Why should they be allowed to use my work without paying? This is a major national newpaper, with deep pockets who would be very annoyed and broke if people took copies off newstand without paying. I could argue that I could shoplift to make up for lack of earnings, as no-one actually is harmed by my actions.
I find it odd that some photographers seem to think it OK for big businesses to simply help themselves to photographer's work.
And no I haven't benefitted. Two reasons - I would have discovered the images earlier if they had gained me work, the only work I been asked to do from that country was from someone who saw my work in another country altogether.
Being pragmatic to my mind is charging them for the usage.
It looks like you aren't interested in any of the advice given. It would be better if you tried to understand the various answers? You did after all ask for opinions?
-
I was almost amazed, until I tried it and got the "zero results" counter. Here's a quote from the website:
"TinEye looks for the specific image you uploaded, not the content of the image."
So if they can't ID on content (sigh) then all the thief has to do is rename the file? I must be missing something.
Their website is light on technical details, but it appears to hash the image contents. What they are trying to say is that it doesn't look if the image is of President Obama or Aunt Lilly, but at the data itself in the image. In other words it would match different versions of the now-iconic Che Guevara-esque Obama image, but would not group it along with realistic photographic renditions of him.
If you look at the examples (http://tineye.com/cool_searches) page, the algorithm seems to be quite sophisticated as it catches quite drastic aterations and partials of an image.
It's a very cool tech. And it will have very... interesting repercussions when Google acquires it - any image where your face is on the web could be instantly connected to you, no matter what the context...
-
The sad fact is there is nothing a photographer can do as a photographer he must seek counsel and ask himself if he is prepared to be David against Goliath? But I must say i am just so incredibly astonished by a lot of the replies this board gets on this subject?
What kind of advice did you expect? If jjj has the money to spend on lawyers, and the mental fortitude for a possibly fruitless and likely protracted legal battle with little to no financial benefit, by all means, go and be David. If that's the case, he doesn't need advice from photographers, he needs advice from an army of trained attack lawyers. And for the record, I am convinced that only people winning in that scenario are the lawyers.
Photographers will offer very different advice which is based on their own response to what they would do in jjj's shoes, which I think in most cases above is prudent: send a polite email for take-down notice, link-back, or just invoice them.
It's not a perfect world, but don't blame the messengers.
-
Send them an invoice, don't ask first, just invoice them for use of n images for x months, say US100 per image per year. They might even pay you, it has worked for me in the past.
This was my first thought and very probably what I will do. Do you also charge extra for using without permission?
Ask yourself this - is it possible you could have benefited in some way from such exposure on a major newspaper's website? If you have a list of clients or published work, adding a named major newspaper cannot hurt.
No benefit - The only work I've had from the country in question, was from someone who had seen my work in a different country again.
I'll certainly add them to the client list - once they've paid me!
Jeremy - I realise theft is not the legal term, but image theft/images stolen is the ordinary language now commonly used to describe copyright infringement.
-
Their website is light on technical details, but it appears to hash the image contents. What they are trying to say is that it doesn't look if the image is of President Obama or Aunt Lilly, but at the data itself in the image. In other words it would match different versions of the now-iconic Che Guevara-esque Obama image, but would not group it along with realistic photographic renditions of him.
If you look at the examples (http://tineye.com/cool_searches) page, the algorithm seems to be quite sophisticated as it catches quite drastic aterations and partials of an image.
It's a very cool tech. And it will have very... interesting repercussions when Google acquires it - any image where your face is on the web could be instantly connected to you, no matter what the context...
This is really great if that's what they do. I hope this leads to a Google-like search engine for images - not by title, description, etc., but by contents. Like "find all images of coyboys wearing a red shirt and any color scarf." And then, of course, the movie databases....
-
Will the Photographer be able to license any of those images as exclusive? That is depriving him of a source of income.
Actually that is a very good point. I did have some plans for those images which included published exclusivity.
-
This is really great if that's what they do. I hope this leads to a Google-like search engine for images - not by title, description, etc., but by contents. Like "find all images of coyboys wearing a red shirt and any color scarf." And then, of course, the movie databases....
TinEye analyses actual image's makeup and looks for other images that match. Searching by description is a level of AI that is very along way off.
-
TinEye analyses actual image's makeup and looks for other images that match. Searching by description is a level of AI that is very along way off.
Indeed. TinEye is definitely one step towards that goal since it appears to group similar but not necessarily identical images together without user intervention. But true pattern recognition is several orders of magnitude more complex - hell, we're not even close to computers which parse simple questions properly.
Nevertheless, TinEye in its current incarnation is already suitable to find all images of your neighbor online and linking them back to that person. Give a near-future version of TinEye a picture of your neighbor and you'll get all instances of that person appearing online, no matter how unflattering the context is. Combine that with all other publicly available information - address, schooling, CV, associates, church group, etc. - will yield a very valuable database. This will bring David Brin's Transparent Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society) closer to reality. I'm not exactly looking forward to that...
-
Jeremy - I realise theft is not the legal term, but image theft/images stolen is the ordinary language now commonly used to describe copyright infringement.
Yes, you're right: it is. But if anyone is seriously thinking about resorting to the law (and I realise that wasn't your suggestion) it's vital to get the terms right: precision in the use of language is just as important to lawyers as sharp focus is to photographers!
It's particularly important here, because of course theft is a criminal offence, whereas breach of copyright is (I think) a purely civil matter.
Jeremy
-
He wasn't being nice, he was being patronising there's a difference.
They were being nice. Your weakness and anger merely did not allow you to see their being nice (and good advice) for what it was. I believe the message that was being conveyed was this:
"If Life hands you a lemon, don't waste your time complaining about how sour it tastes; instead get busy adding some sugar and turning it into lemonade ...
And will certainly admit to not suffering fools gladly.
Good Lord, JJ, how on earth do you live with yourself
.
-
They were being nice. Your weakness and anger merely did not allow you to see their being nice (and good advice) for what it was.
Some posters were helpful and some were patronising there's a difference. Anyway you're the Mr Angry of LL and I have no desire to steal your position.
Good Lord, JJ, how on earth do you live with yourself .
Obviously you cannot live without me, as now your daft [your favourite word] thread on 'photography' has been closed you come here to contibute nothing and simply be bitchy.
-
Some posters were helpful and some were patronising there's a difference. Anyway you're the Mr Angry of LL and I have no desire to steal your position.
Angry? LOL, how ironic is that. In your own anger, you have ignored the same basic good advice 3x now. And that is, rather than come at the newspaper "angry" and as an enemy, come at them as a "friend" who's aware of the transgression, and who merely asks for a link back to your site. Do you not think their greater traffic might not be of ultimate benefit to you?
Or, as another mentioned, simply let them know you know how long they've been using your images, and politely send a statement for the compensation for your services. The point is, if you come at them nice, it might actually be prove to be of great benefit for you. If you come at them (ahem) angry, at best they will just take the photos down and you get nothing.
I actually didn't come here angry in the least; I came here poking fun and having a laugh. I forgot you were so sensitive
Obviously you cannot live without me, as now your daft [your favourite word] thread on 'photography' has been closed you come here to contibute nothing and simply be bitchy.
LOL, this is the first time I have ever initiated a dialogue with you. The last 40+ times we have conversed, you have been the one to initiate
And I actually did contribute something ... a fine parallel highlighting the "turn lemons-into-lemonade" approach that has thrice-now been recommended to you over your "declare war" approach. Unfortunately it is you who are still too bitchy to get it
In all honestly, JJJ, I wish you good luck in your efforts.
Jack
.
-
Angry? LOL, how ironic is that. In your own anger, you have ignored the same basic good advice 3x now. And that is, rather than come at the newspaper "angry" and as an enemy, come at them as a "friend" who's aware of the transgression, and who merely asks for a link back to your site. Do you not think their greater traffic might not be of ultimate benefit to you?
Ever occur to you to read try and read posts in a thread before responding? The paper credited me correctly with my details, that's how I found them. It's in the very first post. Duh! Didn't increase my bottom line at all.
Or, as another mentioned, simply let them know you know how long they've been using your images, and politely send a statement for the compensation for your services. The point is, if you come at them nice, it might actually be prove to be of great benefit for you. If you come at them (ahem) angry, at best they will just take the photos down and you get nothing.
I do intend invoicing them and why would I not be polite about it, I'm not you? Again try reading thread and do not make silly assumptions, as you will only look like a fool, just as you have done previously.
I actually didn't come here angry in the least; I came here poking fun and having a laugh. I forgot you were so sensitive
No you came here stirring and talking ignorant nonsense with the usual childish insults and all without even reading posts properly - as usual. Have I mentioned you have reading difficulties before? You are the one who admits to anger issues and seem to have a seriously pathetic macho attitude. Do not assume everyone is like you. Notice I'm repeating myself a lot - as you only partially read posts, this way there's slightly more chance of you getting point.
LOL, this is the first time I have ever initiated a dialogue with you. The last 40+ times we have conversed, you have been the one to initiate
Is it nice out there in fluffy fluffy land?
And I actually did contribute something ... a fine parallel highlighting the "turn lemons-into-lemonade" approach that has thrice-now been recommended to you over your "declare war" approach. Unfortunately it is you who are still too bitchy to get it
Being a doormat will only increase the rate at which photographers get trampled on even more. Some companies/magazines are known to take images without permission as it is cheaper for them to be sued occasionally that pay up. Why shouldn't I charge them for them my work, that is not declaring war as you dumbly put it, that's simply charging them for my work? How naive are you?
If I was to take their paper off the newstands and not pay for it, I'm sure the police would not have much time for me if I claimed that I would recommend the paper to my friends. Who may also just steal paper and not buy it.
An old signature of mine used to be "Please read all the words in my post and preferably in the correct order". It hasn't seemed necessary on this forum as most people can read and debate intelligently. I may have to resurrect it for your benefit. The irony being, those that it is aimed at don't read/understand it anyway.