Nature Photo site stealing photos

I came across one of my photos that had been lifted from my gallery

and posted in a member gallery on ClubPhoto that belongs to this Yahoo

Group.

Naturepics_at_its_best@yahoogroups.com

 

You may want to check to see if any of your photos were also stolen.

You may also want to avoid participating in a group that does this. A

group of �photographers� no less.

 

I contacted Club Photo and the �owner/moderator� of the Yahoo Group

demanding they remove my photo from the gallery or pay me for it�s

use. Keep in mind that anyone could order prints directly from Club

Photo. Granted, the resolution would have meant anything larger than

a 4x6 would look like crap. Still, it�s the principle. Of course, I

realize theft on the Internet can and will happen. That doesn�t make

it right. I also understand that some people don�t realize it

violates copyright. That was not the case here.

 

Here is the second e-mail I sent the offender. This is after

ClubPhoto had sent a request to have the photo removed (request ignored)

 

 

�You lifted my photo and placed it on your "PhotoClub" gallery. See

this link.

commerce.clubphoto.com/perl/app.pl/select_photo/select_photo?link_code=ss10&id=3884919&group_id=

 

 

It's the photo with my name under it, top row on the right.

 

Are you aware that lifting photos, even low res images from the

Internet is a violation of copyright laws? THIS IS NOT FAIR USE.

That it's posted where someone can order prints is even worse.

Clearly, other photos in this gallery were also stolen per your own

words. Here's what you wrote.

 

Nature Pictures posted in our Yahoo! Group NaturePics and

Naturepics_at_ist_best

Welcome!!

 

You will find here pictures stored which have been posted in our Yahoo

group. Some albums contain 'Snagged' pictures as stated in the

postings. And a majority of the albums contain pictures taken by our

members themselves. Just double-click on one of the albums and enjoy!!

The Albums are sorted by 'Last Modified'.

 

Don't hesitate to leave a note in our guestbook..... and feel free to

come back as often as you like. ~Big Smile~

 

 

(me again)

You should also have received an e-mail from Club Photo regarding

this. Please remove the photo or contact me to make payment

arrangements. Had you asked permission first, I would likely have

authorized the use of the image (not for print sales on this site).

Had you posted a link to my site, I would likely have been fine with

that too. However, you failed to do either. If you are a fellow

photographer, all the worse and shame on you.�

 

Here is the response I got back from this e-mail address:

 

flo43c@yahoo.com

 

�Just my opinion .....But if you don't want something stolen as you

call it Laurie then you should keep it off the damn Internet .....

Pretty sick that it takes some people like this to ruin the fun and

friendships of others .... Ya know you will die one day and so will

those lousy pictures. And no one even cares.�

 

[this presumably came from the moderator of the Yahoo Group site]

 

(And here is my response back.)

 

�And I suppose you would justify stealing from a store because the

shop keeper didn't nail down the merchandise. Don't try to turn this

around on me. You broke the law when you stole my photo. If you'd

had the courtesy to ask, I would have probably agreed. Hell, I might

have even participated with your group. If the photo was so lousy,

you should have left it alone.

 

No...you are the one that's sick. Your rationale is sick. How have I

ruined the fun and friendship of others? You are the one who took my

photo without permission. You are the one who failed to obey the law.

You are the one at fault here. Don't try to make it anything other

than it was, blatant theft. I will be forwarding your reply to

ClubPhoto and posting it on every Nature photo message board I can

find. Now....remove my photo or contact me to arrange for payment.

 

By the way, if you are so convinced your position is the correct one,

why not post your name. Are you REALLY the moderator or owner of that

Yahoo Group?�

 

 

 

I just thought fellow Nature shooters might want to be aware of this.

I recommend contacting Yahoo with your complaint and including copies of all correspondence with the group moderator. Almost surely, the terms of service for Yahoo groups prohibits the posting of copyrighted material without permission. Even if it doesn't, Yahoo is required under the "notice and takedown" clause of the DMCA to remove illegally posted copyrighted material upon notification by the copyright holder. Considering the attitude of the moderator, I don't think it would be too much to ask them to boot him or her from their position as moderator and/or close the group.

 

Of course, this won't prevent the jerk from recreating the group somewhere else, but at least it sends a message. Don't lose too much sleep over it -- while your outrage is 100% justified, there really isn't much that can be done about it. Just keep the resolution of your web images small, so that they can't steal print or stock sales from you.

I noticed on the front page of the group a referance to this copyright notice in the group rules is posted:

 

9.# Copyrights:

 

* In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any and All copyrighted work that is posted here is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for non-profit research and educational or criticism purposes only. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml)

 

For what ever sillyness that refers to.

Johnathan, I certainly won't lose any sleep over this. It's just the principle of the thing. Because the photo is actually posted on ClubPhoto and not Yahoo, I don't know what Yahoo will do if anything. I really don't care, I just want them to know what they did was wrong and they need to stop doing it.

 

Mark, I'm not sure what that exactly means but they can't legally violate copyright laws by anything they might post on their group site.

 

Here's another installment from who might actually be the moderator.

 

Hi Renda,

 

I guess somebody is ill or died recently in your surroundings or not Renda?

I hope not, but that is when I most of the times have the feelings which you express and you right...

 

The house of the sister of my g/friend burned down 2 days ago and it makes you think, materials are less important as people.

Never the less I understand Laurie's comments, assuming it is part of her income...

I am not sure what I would do if I was in her shoes, maybe the same thing if I had a bad day or was PMS-ing.. or just would contact the person and asked what is their goal....

 

I just do not want to stir up the fire... if you don't mind, it is not worth it, so please let it rest and respect Laurie's feelings.

 

Never the less thanks for your support, since no harm was intend.

 

Greetings,

Ellen

 

 

And, my follow-up response:

 

I am not having a bad day or PMSing. How is it that I'm the bad guy here because I expect others to observe and obey copyright laws?

 

If someone steals your wallet, your garden tools, your cell phone, would you ask them "what their goal is"?

 

While I do earn income from my photos, that's beside the point. They are my photos. No one had any right to lift it without my permission. I have no problem with people posting links to my work. I frequently donate prints, participate in multiple forums, and am supportive of fellow photographers. I have nothing to apologize for here. It's clear from statements on your group site and language on the ClubPhoto site that there should have been no doubt that lifting photos violated copyright. It's simply wrong. Just because it's easy to do, doesn't make it the right thing to do. Just because your goals may have been honorable, it's still theft.

 

And I too agree, materials are less important than people. However, as people, as human beings, as members of society, there isn't much that's more important than honor and respect. Justifying theft and disregard for other rights and property are not acceptable. As fellow photographers, I'm taken aback by your cavalier attitudes towards this issue.

 

When I posted my message on your board, it appeared only the moderator would see it and would have to approve it before it went out to the group. If it did go to the entire group, it wasn't my intention. Though, I can't say I regret it.

 

Now...kindly remove my image from your ClupPhoto gallery.

Obviously we need a class of digital file that can't be altered so that caption or watermark remains...

 

But the photo used without permission kept the author's name ? That mitigates the situation somewhat...

 

Now consider that the unauthorized gallery could use a colorful icon or note and clicking the icon would link to the authorized web location of the image...and that is not impropriety. However, the main page of the author's web site is missed and only the image found...so the image may need caption and that from the author's point of view.

 

So at this point you might just develop and post a policy of use by others with the viewpoint of them propagating your reputation...

 

Or keep the images as thumbnail size only and offer Lightjet prints for sale...Now the lightjet prints can be scanned...

Laurie, Sorry to notice the responses you have received from these creatures. Unbelievable.

 

As is evident from their behaviour, it is not worth corresponding with them. I would strongly second what has been suggested about notifying yahoo to take care of these yahoos.

 

All the best!

Laurie, Sorry to notice the responses you have received from these creatures. Unbelievable.

 

As is evident from their behaviour, it is not worth corresponding with them. I would strongly second what has been suggested about notifying yahoo to take care of these yahoos.

 

All the best!

I have now been assured the photo is removed from ClubPhoto by the moderator of the Yahoo group. If anyone is interested in the follow-up exchange of emails, let me know and I'll forward them. No need to clog things up here. The moderator did finally back off on her original position and at least stated she understood my position and would be more watchful in the future.

 

While we are all aware, or should be aware of the potential theft of images from the Internet, it doesn't make it right. Unless we make a fuss, it will eventually be considered acceptable behavior.

"Unless we make a fuss, it will eventually be considered acceptable behavior."

 

Bingo! This statement is so true and applicable to many areas of today's culture. Good for you Laurie for taking a stand.

Well good - I was convinced they wouldn't remove it without a hard kick in the rear from Yahoo or somesuch. I'm glad they have - and I totally agree the principle is worth the fight. It may be a losing fight for a while, but eventually laws will catch up to technology, and technology will find a way to secure files - or at least prove ownership.

This will no doubt be an ongoing issue for photographers. I think what really got under my skin here was that the photo was lifted by a Nature Photo group. They should know better and have more respect for fellow photographers.

Anyone who uses the language posted here as the email correspondence is just scum.

<br>

What difference does it make if they are <i>nature or whatever photography group</i>?

Vivek,

 

I should have been less specific. That it was a photo group (regardless of genre) is what angered me the most.

People like flo43c (Florinda Carter, 359 State Route 1748 E, Mayfield KY 42066, (270)-376-5470) should also realize that the "damn Internet" is not as anonymous as it feels.

 

Maybe if they did, they'd be less likely to treat people that way and act like it's a free-for-all.

Laurie, I'm really sorry to hear about your troubles. I visited your website and really

enjoyed the photos; you have some beautiful landscapes! My photography isn't high

enough quality for anyone to <i>want</i> to "snag", however there are some things all of

us can do to prevent (or at least try to prevent) this from happening:

<br><br>

(1) Watermark your photos in PS. Then if they do end up on a site like this no one would

want prints with a large watermark. Personally I'd be surprised if any place would print

them with that large of a copyright notice on them.

<br><br>

(2) Find a script for your HTML documents that disables right-click. This will prevent a lot

of people from snagging your photos. These scripts usually don't work on every browser

and there's always a way around them, but for most people it becomes a huge pain in the

butt.

<br><br>

Just a couple of humble suggestions.

Great site, Laurie.

I know that placing watermark is not appealing, I do not like it myself ,but with what is going on the Internet I see not much choice left.

 

Couple years ago I posted here a few photos of bats. Well, they started run like crazy all over the web so I took them off. Recently some of those photos were used to illustrate research about bats. As the research turn up to be interesting and media jumped on it several big magazines bought reproduction rights from me. But there are several places on the web which think they can use old most popular lifted copy not only for free but even without asking for my approval. Sure they giving me a credit but...

 

I have no time at this moment for writing them warnings over and over. Yahoo is one of them, on Flickr (Yahoo own this):

 

When I sent them email about this (including all info about me and link to this photo) they sent me standardize respond asking to send them information I already included in my email. At this moment I have no time for cat and mouse games . If they can infringe photographer rights what they will do to a group who does the same what the do. Wild Wild West.

 

Here is another one:

 

http://people.tribe.net/24a6a103-d1ee-4ada-99e1-97a53a609273/blog&topicId=7aa15f4d-ebef-4731-9e83-0ecc9b1a577a

 

No response so far - not to mention that I do not like idea of my photo posted on this site at all.

 

And Spiegel took off an article from public view after sending me some standard response in german.

http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/erde/0,1518,388908,00.html

 

Fortunately the best bat's photos I took were never uploaded on any website so nobody can copy them. How we can protect our self I do not know. If the large companies have no respect who will have?

Steve, That's pretty scary! How'd you get that info so easily? I might have to send her a link to this forum posting. If you saw the rest of the e-mail exchange with her, you'd see she might not be too stable. This would likely send her over the edge.

 

Thanks for the thoughts Greg. I really hate the idea of watermarking everything. I think I'll just have to start posting even lower res files . On my personal site, I do have the right click disable thing. Stuff still gets lifted. BTW, you have some nice landscapes posted. You just need to post more.

 

Thanks Michael! I like your Yosemite/Merced river shot. I've always wanted to go there in the winter. My first (and only) trip to Yosemite was my first serious attempt at photography. My big lesson...don't stack filters on a wide angle lens. I have several shots at sunset, taken from the same spot as yours, with horrible vignetting. A lesson I'll not forget!

 

Mark, I gotta say...that's one impressive bat photo. I had no idea...I've handled a few bats before. They must have been female. Otherwise, I would have noticed. I can't believe how it's being used without your permission. What's really frustrating is the time and effort it takes to address the theft. Sadly, I think the problem will just worsen. I'll have to start seriously considering watermarks. Hmmmph.

Ultimately, I find people who are so insecure that they have to claim they took a shot someone else did are equally as pathetic as they are contemptible. I suppose I am fortunate in that no one would ever want to steal one of my shots.

 

 

Kent in SD

"You may want to check to see if any of your photos were also stolen."

 

Are they lifting photos from members, or from the web in general?

 

I can't see their site becuz I'm not a member... and the more I learn of the place the less I would want to be.

 

Thx, -Greg-

The first response to this thread nailed it with the remarks about the DMCA. You folks need to sit up and take careful notice of this legislation. I did.

 

I recently discovered a blatant use of one of my images, scanned out of a book and used to sell music on a web site. The picture was used over 300 times. I emailed the site owner using several different addresses she has, and was ignored and eventually placed in her stop list so my emails got bounced back. It was obvious she did not want to play ball. Cost of legal action started at $2000 and would have spiralled.

 

Although I am in the UK, and the offending site is in the USA, I invoked the DMCA, wrote to the offenders hosting service and Google, sending sufficient proof of my claim. Google are obliged to remove ALL web links to offending site pages and will only reinstate them if the user proves they have the right to use the contested image. NOTE THAT PART - the USER must confirm their ownership/rights to use.

 

The hosting service contacted the offender within two weeks and demanded that she send them written confirmation of her right to use the images or they would shut her site down. She removed the images immediately.

 

Google then followed it up and would have severed ALL search engine links and references to her pages but she had already removed the images. You can imagine the damage that would have caused her business.

 

Do I get compensated for my time and effort. No. But I did give someone in another country who was stealing from me a fright.

 

The DMCA is a controversial piece of legislation as it is open to serious abuse (as should be obvious from the above), and has been hotly debated with regard to its serious 'freedom of speech' implications. There's a lot of stuff on the web about it and a search on DMCA will turn up plenty.

 

For a pile of info from the US Gov:

 

www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

 

See also the anti-DMCA and EFF sites for another view:

 

http://www.anti-dmca.org/

 

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20030102_dmca_unintended_consequences.html

 

You can read Google's obligations to you here:

 

www.google.com/dmca.html

 

It is a serious piece of legislation, with implications for all of us. Do not think you are in an unprotected position, there is something you can do. It takes some effort, but if you value your work its worth it.

 

www.john-macpherson-photography.com

That's unfortunate Laurie and I'm glad you got the situation resolved though I'm sure there's more floating out there. The sick part is the guy blames you for his actions. And if he needs to steal copyrighted material to maintain his so-called friendships then he probably doesn't have any friends to begin with. He ought to learn to take his own photos with a shutter, not the right click button.

 

I just browsed your Pnet galleries and you've got amazing work. Very well-rounded. At the least, the clown should have at least acknowledged the quality of your work rather than insult you.

I think its 'us' at fault too, many times I have seen ppl post high quality photos on public form with no watermarks or copyrights on them.

Manoj, While there are steps that can be taken to protect work, most of them can be cicumvented. Your logic I suppose would apply to someone forgetting to lock their car/bicycle/house or keeping their wallet in their back pocket. Too bad, they should have known better.

 

While I agree diligence is warranted on the part of photographers, to place blame on them for the illegal behaviour of others is simply wrong. Why have laws of any kind. I'm not trying to be overly dramatic here. It just seems there's a shift in thinking regarding right and wrong here. Society is built on the idea of cooperative conduct of it's members. When bad behavior is blamed on the victim, even in part, it lessens the value of society as a whole. That girl wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't been wearing a low cut blouse. That old lady wouldn't have been bludgeoned to death in her home if she hadn't opened the door for a stranger. The list goes on.

 

I know we're just talking about photos here, not life and limb. I also realize we all have a responsibility take reasonable precautions. My photo, which isn't really the point now, had copyright notice and was posted at a reasonably low resolution. It didn't stop anyone in this case.

Thanks Richard! That clown was a she. You should have seen the subsequent e-mails. I don't think all the lights were on.