Blogger user ripping our images

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by bob_himmelright, Feb 20, 2010.

  1. here's the page http://danilorreis.blogspot.com/
    I have sent a DMCA notice regarding my image found in this post
    http://danilorreis.blogspot.com/2009/07/aquario.html
    as he doesn't respond to emails
    everyone else should do the same if they find their work on his page.
     
  2. I can't read the Portuguese, and I don't know where he is and what the laws are there, but he's posting the images with credits and the site does not appear to be revenue-generating, so if he's writing criticism or commentary of the images it is quite possible that he's within his fair use rights.
     
  3. though blogspot is a US based site owned by google....we'll see what happens.
     
  4. Ah yes, the old where's-the-hosting-server trick. Seriously though, don't be surprised if you learn the use is not illegal, even in the US. Assuming you sent the takedown notice to Blogspot, according to this page the blogger may contest the takedown.
     
  5. I used ‘Google translate’ on the webpage. Seems he's using the images (with credits to the original photographer) to 'decorate' or 'illustrate' his ramblings about love!
    “I saw her watching the fish at the kiosk. I could have approached her, said a gift of any fish, she would have smiled, I would have bought a fish for her - the most colorful - and that would be a fine start for a romance. I would have called for lunch that day and in the silence of our knowledge, have done my small theater nice guy and distracted. She would have loved me like no other, because I would have loved in her ways. And I would have known his way of loving. I saw her watching the fish at the kiosk, she was alone, I was alone, we lost two worlds in a Saturday afternoon that began season. Look at us, I think she smiled. I did not see right, because I turned my face. Beautiful women who observe the live freshwater fish can hurt brutally heart of a man.”
    Annoying and violating your copyright absolutely, but fairly harmless stuff since he’s given you credit for the image.
     
  6. You say copyright violation, maybe he says that's how he writes art criticism. The people on this site tend to a very one-sided reading of copyright issues (yeah, here's where I get flamed) but it's more often the case that things like this are legal gray areas. There's no way you can say this is "absolutely" a copyright violation.
     
  7. Bob, I wish someone would think that my shots were good enough to rip off. :) I'd only be pissed if I thought they were making a profit from the work I've posted freely here. To get additional exposure without effort on my part would be a plus. Personally I think he's paid you a compliment. It is a good shot. Wouldn't it be a hoot if, due to the photo credit he's given you, some third party contacted you & offered to pay you for it's use in a book or calender? It could happen! Best, LM.
     
  8. Well at least he's leaving the EXIF data with your name, camera brand and exposure parameters in the uploaded file from that second link you provided. He must've just dragged and dropped and re-uploaded to his blog.
    The real issue is he's using your photo to embellish his blog in order to make his site more attractive. There's value in that if he ever makes it big and becomes rich off it.
    I'm sure you know the odds of that ever happening.
    On the internet everyone can expose everything about themselves to the world creative or personal and still remain anonymous.
     
  9. http://www.google.com/blogger_dmca.html
     
  10. It's not just my image he's taken. flip through his blog and come back here to photo.net...search some of the names.
    Jeanette Haugs....apparently also a photo.net contributer
    same for: Liutauras Bartasius,Massimo Calvi and Soze Bogac.
     
  11. "Beautiful women who observe the live freshwater fish can hurt brutally heart of a man."
    Am I the only one who thinks this is hilarious?
     
  12. i really dont see the issue here at all. You have been credited and there are only low-res images that could never be used for anything.
    Id take it as a compliment i really dont get the problem, at all.
     
  13. Bob, if I wanted to post a copy of your work as a 200 x 140 pixel image on my blog and asked you in advance, how much would you ask?
     
  14. Ask Gordon Bowbrick about this issue.
    Or ask me.
    Or lots of other prominent Photo.net members.
    We could spend lots of our time just trying to shoot down web sites that purloin our images, including one that says he has taken them and tries to sell them (in 72 dpi) in Ukraine though copyrighted (he may get a visit from militia some day when he least expects it), and many others which do accept advertising, including one Yahoo subsidiary sponsored in another country which is ga-ga about photography.
    Gordon and I (I think) agreed it's a high form of flattery, and we'd rather have the 'problem' than not be thought of highly enough to have someone want to steal our images.
    If your camera has a copyright feature to insert copyright info (including the © symbol, then put it in NOW, and leave it there, but if you download with a downloader such as Adobe, either in Elements or in the new CS4, it has a line to insert in the EXIF info the copyright info.
    Insert the info there, also, as it may override and nullify the camera © notification.
    I was talking to a fellow attorney (well I am a long-ago and former attorney) from Great Britain whose specialty is intellectual property and copyright, and he told me last fall that in Great Britain's courts, he thinks even if you put in the word copyright, you don't stand much of a chance in their courts before their judges unless you put in the actual symbol (©). So, it now appears everywhere for me, as I'm not taking any chances.
    I brought this to PN's attention and the word was they couldn't do a 'global change to insert the symbol each place the word appeared, but notice you NOW have a fresh, editable copyright line . . . . for which we all should thank Josh Root (and the rest of Administration) for helping let us protect our own rights by doing appropriate copyright insertions.
    The © symbol is found just under the small 't' on the 'character map' under All Programs > Accessories > System on any modern windows program (at last on mine, a windows 7, and I think on past Windows programs too (no warranty, but the character map is on all for the last ten years, I'm sure). Just copy and use it.
    If there is an 'issue' when someone copies your image and doesn't wipe the EXIF info, there is your copyright info staring everyone in the face, and although they may 'wipe' it later, all you have to do is download a copy now, and keep it (and have your computer time date he file and then look at the EXIF into, to see if it has that info there, IF you put it there. You're foolish not to.
    But beware giving your camera to others, especially if they take dicey photos and your copyright symbol and info appears in their dicey photos . . . . . for it could cause monumental problems some day -- same issue when you sell your camera.
    If it's later removed, that would probably indicates something like 'consciousness of guilt' as that concept is used in a criminal sense, and if compared with an earlier sample from the same web page would be very damning as 'evidence' for any DCMA host or even a court, though it'd have to be an extraordinarily special photo (Airplane, World Trade Center?; celebrity doing XXX, or something else of great worth to warrant a court action).
    Be flattered and get on with your life.
    SD Woods is right, it's hilarious, and welcome to the world of rock stars who see their recording franchise diminished or almost evaporating because of 'file sharing'.
    Do you file share CDs, DVDs and other matter?
    This is the flip side.
    Get used to it, I think or be prepared to spend lots of energy fighting back in a world which doesn't care too much.
    Someone even posted on FLICKR some of my images and YAHOO got picky with me over the wording of the DMCA complaint, though I understand the images are down now.
    (if they're up again, someone please notify me, as I don't go there.)
    I can understand a sensitive person (like myself) swatting mosquitoes, as I get big welts from a bite, but from gnats, or thrips, well, that goes with being in the garden.
    And remember, 'beautiful women who observe the live freshwater fish can hurt brutally hurt heart of a man'. This person obviously is not doing very well, anyway, and may not respond to normal prompts . . . . .
    Maybe electroshock instead of DMCA notices or polite e-mails?
    ;~)))
    John (Crosley)
     
  15. SD Woods is right, it's hilarious, and welcome to the world of rock stars who see their recording franchise diminished or almost evaporating because of 'file sharing'.
    Do you file share CDs, DVDs and other matter?​
    This is hardly the same thing as file sharing. File sharing is the acquisition of complete music tracks or movies for free that are legally only available from an authorized seller or service provider. A low-resolution photo, posted with credit on a non-commercial blog, is the equivalent of a short sample clip of a song or movie with a link back to the artist's site or where the complete track can be purchased. Look up "fair use" since you're obviously unfamiliar with the concept.
     
  16. Anthea, thank you for that translation, how romantic !
     
  17. Sven. Asking is all that I want.
     
  18. Hugh, I am very familiar with "fair use". However, I fail to see how his use of my image advances artwork, or is considered as news or educational.
     
  19. Hugh J.
    I am not unfamiliar with 'fair use'.
    This is not a law textbook or a 'continuing education" (for attorneys) seminar, so it's difficult to get thoroughly into those matters.
    However, just because a photo is 'low rez' to my mind, does not make it equivalent to a sample.
    If one took a copy of an eyeball or a patch of facial skin, say for a photoshop examination of a photo, or an examination of a photographer's technique in some critical analysis, then I could be certain it would then be 'fair use', but no matter how many or few pixels, the whole image is not a 'sample'. It is the 'whole image', even if not in the best quality. The same surely would apply to a critic's column, even if an entire photo were copied, I feel.
    I think the RCIAA does not make a distinction in file sharing between those who only purloin high compression MP3 files vs those who rip only the lower compression original CD files . . . . and I believe those cases have been holding up in court, as far as I know (but I have not followed them closely, as I simply (1) haven't practiced law in two decades, though I do keep up thoroughly in one or more fields (not this one), and (2) I simply don't file share at all any CDs, MPs, or DVDs., so it's not on my mind at all.
    It is a somewhat different issue when the copy is identified, it has the photographer's name (and has a link to the original web site), then has no site advertising.
    In many cases of my own purloined images, there indeed is site advertising, and people are making a profit from attracting people to their blogs and/or sites by using my images as an attractant . . . . which for me is a significant issue . . . as their sites may be alleged to be 'commercial enterprises' -- especially some of them . . . for reasons I won't enumerate here.
    I looked at the linked page, Google.com translated it, and I could neither identify the poetry quoted nor the image . . . so I cannot verify or not that a 'link' was provided . . . which might be very important, as many legal things are not necessarily black or white (until a judge makes a judgment.).
    So, I am quite familiar with the doctrine of 'fair use' but I also am familiar that the 'law' is what a judge says it is, and that from time to time judges disagree on what that is, sometimes no matter how many people 'agree' before on what is written (I've seen and experienced it personally, both ways).
    ;~))))
    Further, 'facts' are not always clearcut, and even if everyone agrees on the so-called 'facts', sometimes the proofs cannot be made timely in court, and if vital proofs are missing at a trial a judge/jury may never hear the vital information and makes a judgment few expect.
    The law works that way sometimes.
    Which is why so many civil cases settle rather than undergo expensive trials and substantial uncertainties.
    John (Crosley)
     
  20. Bob,
    This same thing happened to me last year. I googled my name and I found my photos on a persons blog. At first, I was mad, but after thinking about it, I decided to let it go. The person did give me credit, they had written nice things about my photographs, and they were not using them to make a profit. I also found one of my photos on a site that sold Flower bulbs. The company posted one of my flower images to advertise lily bulbs, the site was in another language and I had to translate it on a translation site. This ticked me off because they were using my photograph to turn a profit. I am not really sure what to do about it, because it was a company in a different country. When we post photographs on the internet this is a risk we take, you just have to decide if it is worth it to you and what actions you are willing to take when it does happen. Take Care.
     
  21. Bob,
    I find my photos duplicated without permission very frequently. I use the Tineye plug-in for Firefox to find instances of unauthorized use, as well as Google image search.
    If you have filed the DCMA report with Google, the images will be gone from their servers very soon. I know from experience.
    Meanwhile have a look at my copyright notice page, particularly the "Hall of Shame."
     
  22. Online translators can only get you so far - a general idea.
    After 5 years of living in Brazil, this would be my translation.
    I saw her observing the fish in that kiosk. I could have walked up to her and said any little thing about fish, she would have smiled, I would have bought one of those fish for her – the most colorful one – and this would be a delicate beginning for a romance. I would have called her to have lunch on that same day and in our silence gotten to know her, I would have worked my magic, smooth and distracted. She would have loved me like no other woman because she would have loved me in her own way. And I would have known her way of love. I saw her observing the fish in that kiosk, she was alone, I was alone; we were two lost worlds on a rainy Saturday afternoon. We noticed each other, I think she smiled. I didn’t actually see her smile because I turned my head. Beautiful women who observe the sweet life of fish can brutally wound the heart of a man.
    In Portuguese it's not bad, but it loses something in translation.
    I saw nothing on his blog that points to any financial gain. It says he's got 37 people who follow his blog, most of whom are women. You'll have to decide if that's a threat to you. If it is I hope you can find a way to resolve it. However, in Brazil copyright doesn't really mean all that much (sad to say).
    DS Meador
     
  23. @Sven
    Bob, if I wanted to post a copy of your work as a 200 x 140 pixel image on my blog and asked you in advance, how much would you ask?​
    If you click on the thumbnail you get a bigger image - in this case, 680 x 1020.
     
  24. "beautiful women who blah blah blah the sweet life of a fish blah blah and can wound the heart of a man blah blah."
    Just let this fellow have as many images as he wants and feel sorry for him. I think I'm going to take my wife out for fish dinner tonight.
     
  25. for me this is the most meaningful part of the discussion.
    You'll have to decide if that's a threat to you.​
     
  26. However, just because a photo is 'low rez' to my mind, does not make it equivalent to a sample.​
    Lo-res or hi-res has nothing to do with it. It's the intention and purpose that makes it fair use or not. Again, the information is out there if you want to look for it and educate yourself. Just because it's "to your mind" doesn't mean you're correct.
    Hugh, I am very familiar with "fair use". However, I fail to see how his use of my image advances artwork, or is considered as news or educational.​
    I don't speak the language and online translators can be a little clunky so I'll leave it at that. What I can see is that it's a noncommercial blog (as far as I can tell he's not using your image to sell T-shirts, and everything on the site is viewable without a paid subscription) and he's given you proper credit. I'd certainly be flattered, and appreciate the free publicity.
    Your other option is to join the watermark brigade.
     
  27. I`ll add my two cents...
    At late December 2009 I received at Facebook an email and friend request from Bulgaria. The young, beautiful and obviously musically and art talented - yet also totally unfamiliar lady asked for a friendship. To say the least, I was sceptical, thinking all the possible virus,hacking, etc... possibilities and adding the inappropriate scam-mails of the net. Well, it turned out that she had seen my winter photos at the net and wanted to express that she liked them a lot. The downside is that these photos were at a Bulgarian site that had run a "net article" with aprox. 35-40 of my photos at one page. All this without any permission or questions before hand.

    The original site that led me to further Googling:
    http://biskvitka.net/2009/12/30/izkustvoto_na_alpo_syvanen.html

    This led me to a deeper Googling and it was startling to find literally hunders of torrent-sites that had a torrent packet consisting of 69 of my images and my name over the package. (There were lots of other packages with the names of other photographers.) I also found several blogging sites that had huge amounts of our Photo.net photos ripped. And I mean one photographer might have 20-100 of his/her`s photos at those blogs. They gave credit to us, but these photos were used without our permission. Couple of the sites even gave a kind of introduction concerning, for example, me. One stated that I am an British professional nature photographer (flattering, but I am a Finnish youth coucellor - and totally amateur), the other one had facts more perfectly laid out, because they were taken from my Photo.net profile.

    I`d suggest that you, fellow Photo.netters, take a good look at these sites and google your name, properly browsing the opening google-list... That may make you wonder a little bit, at least it did that for me. Before you start browsing, a word of caution! When browsing those links, have some kind of script, java, applet blocking-software installed to your browser and good antivirus package, because these and the torrent sites may contain something that is very nasty to your computer...

    http://www.bigpicture.in/the-beautiful-work-of-alpo-syvanen/
    http://www.4otos.net/nature-photography-by-alpo-syvanen/

    THESE TWO PARTICULAR LINKS may be more than interesting.... I did not check all of those links in this list, but there are plenty of familiar names:
    http://www.4otos.net/archive/
    http://www.bigpicture.in/category/photography/

    So, at the end, what does this mean... Well, I was very irritated when these pages popped out and those torrent-packages with my name are stilll worrysome. Mainly because if they contain viruses and/or some kind of nasty material added to them outside of my photos, it is definitely not good. What can I do to these packages? I assume that nothing at all. There was one site which address doesn`t appear anymore in Google lists, that had some other photo torrent packages that startled me. One package had a name something like this: Alpo Syvanen photos from photo.net all of 2009 - and another one something like this: Alpo Syvanen photos all published... I did not take the address to my list at that time because I was totally strartled... Those torrent fellows must be scraping the bottom of the lair when my photos interest them. Sad.

    Well then, about the photo-blogs... They may be genuine, that`s kind of flattering. Thank you and please, ask a permission to use the photos at next time! On the other hand, at least some of these sites may be kind of phishing-lures... Sites that lure the interested and wondering photographers to view them and there may be trojans and loggers to catch the prey... Who knows...?

    Sorry for the lenghty rant! :)
     
  28. I will never,ever post any of my pictures on a site that is missing the 'right click save disabled' feature. It's so basic and would discourage or eliminate all of the petty thefts in this thread - it's a mystery why this site and others don't have it.
     
  29. John,
    There are scripts/plugins available that very easily disable the right-click disable (in other words, they re-enable the right click).
    Disabling right-click is like not locking the door and putting a towel over the door handle hoping no one figures how to remove it. *grin*
     
  30. To Len Marriot,
    I have blogged one of your photos titled "Students at Leica School" to http://photobymarkdavey.blogspot.com I guess you will find that ok as I have credited you with taking the picture. If you do not like the use of your photo in this way and object I'll happily remove it!
     
  31. Disabling right click is, while not completely useless, somewhere between 90% and 99% useless. Heck, it's completely disabled in my Firefox because of a plugin I installed a while back that blocks a number of annoying web page behaviors. There is no way to secure your image while also allowing somebody the public to view it in their browsers.
     
  32. Is Charles Aznavour also up in arms? Come on, it's a personal blog that has 30 readers!
     
  33. "Sven. Asking is all that I want."

    Google has copied all of your images.

    And stores them on their servers. And makes money using them.

    Did they ask you?

    When did you send them a take down notice?
     

Share This Page