All photos are copyright the photographer, and may not be used without written permission.

<p>Does that look and sound familiar? <em><strong>"All photos are copyright the photographer, and may not be used without written permission."</strong></em></p>

<p>It should, it's on everyone's portfolio on this site. I don't know about the rest of you, but I've <em>never</em> given <em>anyone</em> written permission, or any other kind of permission, to use my photographs for their own ends.</p>

<p>Yet photo.net allows your photographs to be tweeted, Facebooked, Googled, liked or disliked by idiots who aren't even members of this site, and otherwise sent all around the world on the Internet. Basically, photo.net allows your photographs to be used in any shape, form, or fashion without you having the slightest say-so in the matter. I've found my photographs on Google, and on middle European websites with comments on them written in languages I have no hope of understanding.</p>

<p>Ever work in an office environment with a LAN system, a system that usually gives you a warning with you log in that goes something like "you have no reasonable expectations of privacy, etc. etc. blah blah blah.? Same thing on photo.net. You have no control over your own work here. Your work can be stolen, printed, sold, misinterpreted, and who knows what all. And what do you get out of it? Nothing. Zero. <em>Nada</em>. Zilch.</p>

<p>It pisses me off, big time. What about you? Or do any of you even pay any attention to where your work ends up?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Please visit our - <a href="/info/terms-of-use">terms of use</a> and read it in its entirety - it is what you agree to when you joined, we are not doing anything you haven't agreed to. Yes, Google does index our site, as they do with 99.999% of all other sites out there. If you don't want to share your photography, then I suggest that don't upload it anywhere on the internet. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"...I've <em>never</em> given <em>anyone</em> written permission, or any other kind of permission, to use my photographs for their own ends."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For several years photo.net's <a href="/info/terms-of-use">Terms of Use</a> and <a href="/info/guidelines/">Community Guidelines</a> have described several conditions of permissible usage of member photos. All members have consented to those conditions by default, simply by participating on the site and uploading their photos, which makes those photos available for the stated uses.</p>

<p>A few excerpts of published policies:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"We respect our users' intellectual property, and claim no copyright to anything posted on the site by our users. However, as a stipulation of using photo.net, we retain the right to keep and display anything posted by users on photo.net as part of the site indefinitely. <em><strong>If you are not prepared to accept this, please do not upload or contribute anything to </strong></em><em><strong>photo.net</strong></em><em><strong>.</strong></em>"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> *<br>

This next policy is absolutely essential and critical to photo.net's mission as a peer to peer site for encouraging constructive critiques:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"You grant to other photo.net members permission to download a copy of images contained in your User Content, to make such alterations and markups for the purpose of commentary as they see fit, and to attach the modified images to their comments on your User Content. You also grant other Site users the right to quote your User Content in their own postings on the Site."</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>*<br /> <br />Photo.net's policies regarding usage of members' intellectual property and contributions - both written and photographic - are among the most clearly worded, easily understood and least arcane I've seen anywhere online.</p>

<p>And the site has traditionally been among the most vigorous in efforts to protect copyrights and intellectual property rights, within the context of the above mentioned usage policies. Photo.net may be among a tiny handful of websites that do not give free rein to posting photos or images that were not created by the member who posted the images. Even usages that have become common practice in social media, such as embedding images that link directly back to the originating site, are not permitted on photo.net.</p>

<p>For example, I cannot embed a photo from your off-site website or photo host, to accompany my posts on photo.net, even if you give me permission to do so. I can only post my own photos - photos that I have created, not even those which I happen to have in my collection such as family photos, but did not create myself.</p>

<p>However, I can download your photos from your photo.net portfolio space for the purpose of making suggested edits, and reupload them to your portfolio space or, where appropriate, to discussion forum threads where such photos are relevant to the discussion. By participating on photo.net, you have agreed to this usage and have given permission to me and other members to do so.</p>

<p>As a matter of practice, some members do not upload their photos directly to photo.net. They do not upload photos to photo.net's portfolio spaces, discussion forums or anywhere else onsite. They embed photos that are hosted on their own websites, or off-site hosts (Flickr, smugmug, etc.). This gives them more control over their own photographic content. They can break the links to remove their photos from the site.</p>

<p>I do not know whether this type of participation also is covered by photo.net's policies regarding permission to members "to make such alterations and markups for the purpose of commentary as they see fit".</p>

<p>Further complicating matters, it is not immediately clear which photos were uploaded directly to photo.net's servers and which are embedded but actually hosted off-site. You would need to check the URL for each photo to determine this. Some folks make it a bit easier by making their photos hot links back to the hosting site, but occasionally those links are broken so that the photo remains embedded on photo.net but is not a hot link.</p>

<p>So there are some complications. But not regarding policies for photos you have directly uploaded to photo.net's servers. Those usage policies are clear and have been published and available to all members to read for several years.</p>

"All photos are copyright the photographer, and may not be used without written permission."

 

That is just a reminder that all photos are copyright protected under Title 17 of the US Copyright code.

 

Photo.net no more "allows" photos to be copied than does the copyright office. It is up to you to bring a charge of infringement if you see your photos being copied without your permission.

<p><em>Your work can be stolen, printed, sold, misinterpreted, and who knows what all</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

That applies to pretty much every site on the web where you post images. I don't know of any sites I can't steal images from should I really want to. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yet photo.net allows your photographs to be tweeted, Facebooked, Googled, liked or disliked</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, photo.net doesn't. The mere fact that you can view an image means that you can also "steal it", "pin it", "tweet it", "stumble-upon it" or download it (your browser does it when you view it anyway). Photo.net does nothing to "allow" this to happen - there just isn't a way to prevent it (actually there is, don't upload in the first place).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>photo.net allows your photographs to be used in any shape, form, or fashion without you having the slightest say-so in the matter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again no - photo.net doesn't allow this at all, there is just no way to protect them. The only person that allow this is you - by uploading them to the interwebs in the first place.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Or do any of you even pay any attention to where your work ends up?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I used to - not anymore though. My only way to protect myself is to upload small images only - at least no one can make decent-size prints with them. One could spend all day issuing DMCA take-down notices - to what effect? You could go the route of registering copyright and then hope that someone with deep pockets apprehends one of those image - then it's going to be payday for you.</p>

<p>There are entire websites that are based on "copyright infringement" (for example, pinterest); they have enough lawyer speak in their TOS to protect themselves and the users are "blissfully unaware (or don't care)"(?) that they are breaking copyright law all the time.</p>

<p>Jim, to save myself the anguish you are experiencing I have never uploaded an image without first downsizing it and reducing the resolution to anywhere on the web. <br>

I still get upset when I find a client has scanned and printed an image that they have previously paid me for. <br>

I guess you and I still live in the pre-Napster days.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It pisses me off, big time. What about you? Or do any of you even pay any attention to where your work ends up?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes I do care. I care very much.<br>

I pay a great deal of attention to my work because first and foremost I realize that I am in my own business and that is what has paid the family accounts for many years.<br>

I pay a lot of attention to detail as that is one of MY responsibilities as the Managing Director of our Company: and it is that Company which owns most of the work which I have produced.<br>

I care so much that I usually have always read all the details and consider all the possible outcomes before I enter into any contract.<br>

Accordingly, I read all the Terms and Conditions of Use before I joined Photonet and after joining I have acted such that I do not to jeopardize any of my Company’s assets.<br>

It is really not that difficult to contribute words and images (and time and effort) to this site in a positive manner and also in a way that can be somewhat selfish in part, whilst still acting in a manner which is cognisant of all the possible outcomes in respect of what one posts or contributes. </p>

<p>Really, I don’t think that you have any case at all, as you and you alone are responsible for any and all of your contributions here and also the subsequent outcomes. </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

Jim's account has been deleted--nine years after he joined. I hope he stayed long enough to read the replies to his post.

It's too bad he never found the time to read the site's terms of use.

 

For some reason, this reminds me of a snippet of dialogue from the movie "Clueless":

 

Josh: Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

Cher: No. Why, does it sound like I do?

<p>While I have no interest in weighing in on a debate regarding the merits of uploading ones work to the web, I will say that Jim is a talented photographer and this site is poorer in his absence. </p>

<p>One of the features I like is for my work to be seen, Tweeted, Favorited, Liked, Google +, Pinned..... tell the world I am a photographer and I take awesome photos and I am here. If you don't want anybody to see your work or know you have photos, there are options.</p>

<p>1. Don't post them to the internet. Probably the best way to make sure nobody sees your work or knows you exist.<br /> 2. Here on Photo.net go into your portfolio, select the folder, go into Admin, Select <em><strong>Edit Folder Set Visibility</strong> </em>set it to <em><strong>Hidden</strong> </em>or <em><strong>Private.</strong></em><br /> <strong><br /></strong>3. Watermark your work, that way every photo becomes an advertisement for your photography.</p>

<p>Isn't the purpose of uploading photos to a public site to get people to view your work, comment on it. Otherwise, just get Carbonite or another service that will give you a secure site to store your data that nobody will ever have access to.</p>

<p>If the photos go out on the web and people will see them, regardless of the site, there will be a way for someone to copy the image.</p>

<p>If that bugs you, watermark, post small, don't post.</p>

<p>I came to my senses on this a while back. Thinking about it and reading comments from other photographers here, what is your purpose in posting photos in a public place. It's just how you look at it, a small attitude adjustment. I believe we post our photos so they will be viewed, commented on, helping to promote our works and reputation as photographers among our peers and the public. We can't show our work publicly and retain 100% control. People will talk, people will share your work if you are good enough and lucky enough.</p>

<p>Imagine your photo goes Viral, 100 million people see Jim Adams photo, people saying that photo is awesome, that Jim Adams is one amazing photographer. I want to hire Jim Adams or buy some of his shots at a resolution I can hang on the wall.</p>

<p>This is a good thing. If I only could be this fortunate. Tell the world I am here. Please, everyone Tweet, Pin, Like my photos, make them go viral. email links taking people to my shots to all your friends. Send my shots to your publishers, say look at this photo taken by this photographer, the shot is amazing, you need to get this guy to do our shots. Please, everyone reading this post go to my portfolio pick some shots and share and help me go viral. lol. And remember, if your image does go viral, you still own it. If it ends up on the cover of a major magazine, album cover, book or greeting card without your permission, you hit the lottery. lol.</p>

<p>What is the worst fear here? That someone email's your shot to a friend or posts a link on Facebook and more people see your shot.</p>

<p>For me the worst would be nobody sees a shot I am proud of.</p>

<p>Really the alternative is nobody or very very few people will see your work or know you are a photographer if the images only remain on your hard drive. And that is OK if that's what you want.</p>

<p>Jim you are a good photographer. Just watermark your shots here with name and personal website, select a few nice shots that will be great advertisements driving people to your website and services.</p>

<p>For me, what Photo.net is doing here is a good thing and and a service to all it's members. Just my opinion.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Withholding photos from the internet won't guarantee the photos won't be copied and posted. The internet is full of photos scanned from books. William Mortensen, Brett Weston, Masahisa Fukase, and hundreds of other photographers never posted a single photo to the internet, yet their photos can easily be found online.</p>

<p>Arguably, such copyright violations - scanning and posting samples online - may help some photographers. Roger Ballen's early books, "Dorps" and "Platteland", predated the internet yet the proliferation of samples of certain photos that echoed the style of Avedon's American West helped secure Ballen's stature. For years he mostly concentrated on producing books of his photo projects. "Copyright violations" of his books through scanning and posting online wouldn't hurt sales because book collectors want books, not 800x800 pixel JPEGs from Google image search. If anything such copying helped with publicity. Now in his early sixties, Ballen enjoyed a huge boost in stature through his direction of Die Antwoord's "I Fink U Freeky" music video, and he's evolved into a savvy user of social media, promoting his newer book projects, videos, artistic installations and workshops.</p>

<p>One day, well over a half decade ago, I did an Internet search under my name, and just on one search engine, I found my images on 38 different blogs.<br>

I was incensed.<br>

How could they? <br>

I was indignant, and looked up the DMCA. To a few, I issued DMCA notices, and those few were specially chosen.<br>

One religious woman for her orgqanization took a photo of mine from 1968-69 Tijjuana, cropped it, reposted it, and after attributing it to me, representing the old photo showed present the squalid conditions in Tijuana, a complete falsehood.<br>

I wrote her an angry letter accusing her of what I felt were dishonest practices, since I clearly had marked the photo's time of taking. To her credit, she not only took down the photo but she also reprinted my letter of accusation in its entirety. She deserved a scolding and took it properly.<br>

Others who got such letters were using my photos as fodder to sell advertising, and not paying me. They had web sites devoted to showing photos, but were selling ads on those sites and not informing me or offering me anything of their revenue.</p>

<p>I considered those were commercial ventures, compared to the amateur blogs run by individuals for personal interests. I drew the line at advertising on blogs. I still do, though I'm less regimented than before and less outraged than before for reasons I'll explain.<br>

No DMCA letters were sent out to the latter category ever, and probably none ever will be.<br>

I took stock and also took a deep breath.<br>

I looked up Photo.net's statistics, did some rough calculations of 'views' under the 'old system of 'thumbnail view counting' compared to today's system of 'click view counting' and came to the conclusion that easily under the old system of counting that my photos had been viewed well over 250 million times.<br>

Even counting clicked 'large' and 'larger' views as the site does now plus an ancillary site and 'views' counted by other sites such as blogs, the number was well above 100 million clicked views.<br>

I could not ignore that, especially since not one time did I find my name misspelled, and only one time at all was I informed that someone on Flickr had appropriated a photo of mine for his own portfolio claiming he had taken it. <br>

I think he losthis account and for good reason. He got 'told on', and so I filed a DMCA letter with FLICKR. <br>

Otherwise, ever since Google.com has started indexing the name John Crosley and has found me, it has indexed my name first, and you can't get higher than that.<br>

For many years my listing on Photo.net was first under the hundreds of pages indexed under 'John Crosley' and now it's a listing of my images (usually over 100) followed by my Photo.net site posting, followed usually by a second PN site listing of mine. <br>

That's not all.<br>

There often are two to eight different category listings under my name, and I'm first under all of them.<br>

John Crosley commnent.<br>

John Crosley work.<br>

John Crosley Loneliness (showing a photo and an index of my photo,net comments and work, truncated now to ten pages, but at times it has run to 100 Google.com pages.<br>

And others from time to time.<br>

Imagine, from simple posting on Photo.net, I have sometimes had 100 PAGES of googlecom listings linked to my work, my comments or comments relating to me, indexed in page after page in Google.com<br>

When I found that, I could hardly believe it.<br>

Recently, under John Crosley comment , the link was trimmed to between about 38 to 48 pages, appearing intermittently, and changed as Google is wont, every four hours or so, to 'mix it up'.<br>

I couldn't be happier at all the free publicity.<br>

I found a photo of mine I had forgot about on Printerest with 150 (I think) endorsements. <br>

It was a long-ago woman friend's arm and breast - a good work. It had its own following, and they were not 'porn followers' it was clear.<br>

Google.com does an absolutely wonderful job lately when it indexes under (now) John Crosley Loneliness (with hope) - the caption of a photo, listing five or so other PN photos and one of them keeps changing, often to favorites I had long ago forgotten about, and shouldn't have.<br>

I think whoever indexes my work at Google likes my work, or they just have a stunning and intuitive photo choice algorithm at google.com, as many of those photos out of my 2,000 posted here got neither high views nor rates, but are some of my best, and are being shown anew alongside my best and all time most popular.<br>

Color me happy with that.<br>

People ask me for an e-mail address or business card.<br>

I don't have a business card.<br>

I never give out my e-mail address.<br>

I have them write out my name, then I tell them to index it on Google.com where they'll find my 2,000 PN photos, those on other services PLUS my e-mail address, and I tell them where to find the e-mail address.<br>

If someone has my name, they can always find me now in this Intenet age, all fro posting photos on PN and also fro blogs that repost.</p>

<p>Photo.net gets new viewers from those I meet who look up my name and work, and often I have learned, some become new members and I sometimes get new and occasionally long-term friends who ALWAYS CAN FIND ME.<br>

'just index my name on Google.com; it's no. 1. <br>

It's the world's easiest introduction.<br>

It's been that way from the start.<br>

Although google.com no longer lists 38 blogs that have purloined my photos, my photos still are on more blogs than that, if one searches Yandex.ua, Yandex.ru and other, less used search engines such as Bing, (Yahoo too), Ask.com, and so forth.<br>

I can hardly believe how much free publicity I get.<br>

I could have spent millions to get this publicity, and I'm getting it for free.<br>

People see my photos, and occasionally it has happened when I don't fly my usual airline where I'm upgraded automatically, that when I fly an airline that doesn't have a clue 'who I am' (I'm really nobody),if they see the camera equipment as I check and if things are slow, some may look at my work in the back room Internet, and as a result, I have occasionally found myself with a complimentary upgrade.<br>

My usual airline upgrades me because I've flown well over a million miles in my life on them, and it's just policy. For others ,however, it's great recognition, one minute to be nobody, and the next to have a first or business upgrade without even asking (sometimes, but not always and never for asking).<br>

I find in Ukraine and Russia, photographers I meet often know my work. I sat down for dinner with the man who taught me in sign language (he spoke Russian/I didn't) to use his studio lights when I rented his studio for models in Odessa. We met for dinner at a later time for me to see his wedding albums he shot; he was a great shooter. He saw my work and said excitedly 'I KNOW YOUR WORK!', and that was eight or nine years ago!<br>

Small world.<br>

He saw my photos on Photo.net not recognizing they were mine and that he and I had worked together until I opened my laptop at that Odessa restaurant. There had been no PN personal bio photo to tip him off. <br>

I found I had an admirer I already knew,and he was from Ukraine and a major class shooter.<br>

If there's a brush with authorities questioning my status as photographer because someone complains that because I have a camera and am taking photos 'it's suspicious', I just tell them to have their dispatcher open up Google.com and find me and my photos.<br>

<br>

My bond fides are then established and that ends any inquiry.<br>

<br>

They often go home, I learn later, and browse my work.</p>

<p>Then there is no 'next time' or if there is a chance encounter later, it's friendly -- like 'old friends' usually.</p>

<p>You just can't buy for any kind of money that kind of reception, I think.</p>

<p>Part is from the photos I take, and a good part is from the fact I post them for the world to see,and because the world looks, google.com has indexed me prominently for about ten years - always NO. 1 under my name and also under a variety of subsidiary categories, and those categories often change.</p>

<p>Search engines such as Google.com are driven not just by Photo.net traffic but also by blog postings and mentions. Appearing in blogs helps drive web browser prominence higher.</p>

<p>That boosts the value of your name.<br>

I don't 'sell' my name per se' I'm an amateur, though with ambitions.<br>

If I ever turn professional, you can bet I already have my publicity well thought out.<br>

And certainly would include blog mentions and repostings as well as my PN, FLICKR and other on-line portfolios.<br>

;~))</p>

<p>Color me happy.</p>

<p>Leaving Photo.net would be a very foolish thing for me to do.</p>

<p>(By the way, Lex J., great posts.)</p>

<p>john<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

<p>Corrections,<br>

I'm having a major problem with anti-spam filtering rejecting my posts and corrections to the extent the problem has eaten up six hours just today, and so the above post was sent through without an attempt to do routine error fixing -- the inevitable result would have been the anti-spam filter then would have blocked the whole post, fixes and all.<br>

Sorry for the inconvenience; I'm working up a complaint to Adm.</p>

<p>john<br>

<br />John (Crosley)</p>