Do we need to Google-image-search our own photos?

<p>Should all photographers periodically use Google image search, upload some of their more memorable / popular images, and check whether any websites show unauthorized copies? Maybe so. And maybe somebody (business opportunity for Google?) should offer a service of regular periodic monitoring (basically, you upload the most-likely-to-be-stolen pictures, they frequently look for copies, and send you a list of where likely copies are found).</p>

<p>Yesterday on a whim I Google-image-searched two of my pictures. One of them appeared at Panoramio--still containing the copyright notice that's automatically tacked onto the image file at the website where I uploaded it. Panoramio also contained what arguably may have been another copyright notice (it referred to the subject of the picture, not any person, but maybe somebody created an an account with the picture-subject given as the account-owner's name). I'm not <em>too</em> bothered because (1) the actual displayed file contains a visible copyright notice with my name, (2) this is a picture intended for free public viewing, (3) the website only has a moderate-resolution JPEG, and (4) the website appears to be owned by Google instead of some two-bit pirate (yeah, I know--another subject for another day). (By the way, both pictures also appeared at some Russian website, poezdausa.ru, but I just don't have the energy to look into potential infringers halfway around the world with a non-English website.)</p>

<p>The source of my whim was probably a recent thread here started by a photo.net member who appears to have been a crook, and turned into a long discussion of 'fauxtographers' who try to promote their photography businesses by stealing, and claiming to have taken, others' images. A quick search didn't find the actual thread, but some of the posters were surprised with the apparent ease / skill with which other posters figured out the likely sources of the stolen pictures on the Internet. There's a lot of stolen content, but newer search tools are at least giving you a fighting chance and finding the thieves.</p>

 

<p>Dave, I have a lazy question, but I guess I can be lazy, not being held to the same standard as an OP! ;-D If you upload an image to Google image search, do you grant Google any usage rights to your upload? Put another way, how can Google abuse your upload? (Obviously I don't trust them not to be evil.)</p>

<p>No problem with searches. They don't store the image.</p>

<p>I believe there are image tracking services, but I don't recall any specifics.</p>

<p>If image theft is going to upset you, it might be better not to know!</p>

<p>Correct me if this is incorrect, but I understand that your images are copyright protected whether you include the © .... . or not? </p>

<p>Yes, your images are copyright protected - but only you will know this unless you include a copyright notice.</p>

<p>A few weeks ago, I Googled a couple of my images and found them being used on a blog of someone in Japan. Even with the translator function, I couldn't really tell what the blog was about - just a bunch of pretty flower pictures.<br>

When I don't have anything else to do (ha!), I might try to Google a few more. I did start adding a © notice on all my new uploads though.</p>

<p>Sarah, it's a fair question and a real issue. Bob is very likely correct that <em>as of today</em>, Google does not store the images you upload and ask it to match (I guess unless and until the NSA asks them to!). But I don't particularly trust Google; cf. my account of Panoramio as a Google property. I would not put anywhere on the Internet a picture that I just couldn't afford to have stolen. It's kind of like some of the best inventions don't get patented because filing the patent application gives the potential infringers ideas, and the better approach is just to keep the invention a secret.</p>

<p>Andy, yeah, I have the copyright, regardless of whether there is a notation saying so. And I have the raw file as evidence, if necessary. But: (1) along the lines of what Bob said, a lot of people incorrectly assume that if there's no copyright notice, they're free to take and use the image; and (2) if some legitimate person sees the image and wants to license it, there's a much better chance a royalty payment makes its way to me if my name is there.</p>

<p>By the way, a P.S. about the Russian site: with Google translate (anyone notice the irony?), I developed the distinct impression that it is an enthusiast site of the sort I would have freely granted permission to use the pictures, if somebody had contacted me and asked (which is easy to do through the site where I originally posted the pictures). From time to time various people have asked to use some of my pictures, and I've almost always (maybe always) freely allowed it. And then on the one occasion where an ostensibly-respectable print magazine asked for a picture and said they'd pay me, they ran the picture but didn't pay, and then ignored my follow-up e-mails. Go figure ...</p>

<p>At the end of the day, unless I can determine that somebody else is actually taking credit for my pictures or selling them, I probably don't have the energy to do much. On the other hand, if someone is doing either or both of those things, I'm definitely coming after them.</p>

<p>Using <strong>TinEye.com</strong> I found one of my images being used 62 times, mostly in foreign countries or social media. Way too much trouble to track them down. However, I have sent out "cease and desist" notices to many - and even got a $150 check from one of these. It was being used in their brochure. Google works the same way.</p>

Plus one for the TinEye plug in. I have found (Billed and

got paid)many of my images re used without permission

using TinEye.