Jump to content

Blogger user ripping our images


Recommended Posts

<p>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.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p >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! </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“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.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Annoying and violating your copyright absolutely, but fairly harmless stuff since he’s given you credit for the image. </p>

<p ><br /><br /></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>I'm sure you know the odds of that ever happening.</p>

<p>On the internet everyone can expose everything about themselves to the world creative or personal and still remain anonymous.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Ask Gordon Bowbrick about this issue.</p>

<p>Or ask me.</p>

<p>Or lots of other prominent Photo.net members.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

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. <br>

Insert the info there, also, as it may override and nullify the camera © notification. <br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>Be flattered and get on with your life.</p>

<p>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'. </p>

<p>Do you file share CDs, DVDs and other matter?</p>

<p>This is the flip side. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.<br>

(if they're up again, someone please notify me, as I don't go there.)<br>

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.</p>

<p>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 . . . . .</p>

<p>Maybe electroshock instead of DMCA notices or polite e-mails?</p>

<p>;~)))</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>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'.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Do you file share CDs, DVDs and other matter?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hugh J.<br>

I am not unfamiliar with 'fair use'.<br>

This is not a law textbook or a 'continuing education" (for attorneys) seminar, so it's difficult to get thoroughly into those matters.<br>

However, just because a photo is 'low rez' to my mind, does not make it equivalent to a sample.<br>

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.<br>

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. <br>

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. <br>

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.<br>

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.).<br>

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). <br>

;~))))<br>

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.<br>

The law works that way sometimes.<br>

Which is why so many civil cases settle rather than undergo expensive trials and substantial uncertainties.<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bob,<br>

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.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bob,<br>

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.</p>

<p>If you have filed the DCMA report with Google, the images will be gone from their servers very soon. I know from experience.</p>

<p>Meanwhile have a look at my <a href="http://www.saugus.net/Photos/copyright_notice.shtml"><strong>copyright notice</strong> </a> page, particularly the "Hall of Shame."</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Online translators can only get you so far - a general idea.</p>

<p>After 5 years of living in Brazil, this would be my translation.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>In Portuguese it's not bad, but it loses something in translation.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>DS Meador</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...