Another theft of a photograph

[steve_bingham]

This is the third time this year I have had someone e-mail me and

tell me about one of my images being used in violation of copyright

law. What is strange about this one is that the thief is a commercial

photographer! Go figure. Here is the commercial site. the image

is "The Old Man".

http://www.phase4photography.com/image-enhancement.htm

 

I am not sure Jim xxxxx, who sent me the heads up would want his name

published, but thanks Jim! I can't help but wonder how many

photographs are stolen from this site? I mean it is LOADED with great

images from great photographers all over the world. (And I really

don't include myself in this category.)

[pnital]

http://poetrycafe.weblog.com.pt/arquivo/2004_12.html

 

Steve, here is an address, and I have found one of my works there and some other works of names from PN.

That is only one of them, but I have found more of my works in other sites as well.

 

I don't think we can do something to stop it....If resolution is not high they can not use it for real prints,but for the internet and cards probably yes, at least in this one our names are near the image.. small consolation...

[cappoldt]

Steve, that's a pretty blatant example of using your work to fatten someone else's wallet. Will you persue legally?

[steve_bingham]

I have every intention of pursuing this legally!

[ellis_vener_photography]

Well steve, I hope you did a copyright registration of any images --especially that iamge

-- before now,. If you haven't done so do it immediately.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The majority of images on the web and coming into copy shops and labs for printing is un-marked; un-stamped. Your chap might have received the image from 12 friends back; off KaZaa; bought it off a CD; from another site that is not yours!. In map publishing magazines and books; almost all purposely have a tiles name on the book or map. There are 500+ million files alone on KaZaa floating around. With most images not watermarked; and most prints no being stamped; one wonders if it is just a gift and not theft? In map copyright map makers try to always prevent copying; document the maps; have trick errors; and actively bitch when illegal copies are made. Unless one tries to halt the copying; the image just gets all over the place; diluted; impossible to stop. If somebody steals you camera out of you locked car; this is abit a real theft. If you leave it each night by the tracks; in a bad side of town; hoping it will be nicked; then maybe this is less theft but more a gift to the night zombies. A huge percentage of folks have the take that a high res image posted on the web is theirs; so why not just use more logos and watermarks; and register your images?

[kelly_flanigan1]

All this unwatermarked web crap and unstamped wedding photos is a royal PITA when one runs a print shop. Photographers are so lazy today; they hide from reprints; they are scared to abvertise. One then has to try to sort out this BS on ownership; which is frankly getting worse each year. A good client may use a mix of all internal; some lifted from the web; who really knows; when things are basically given away unmarked. Printers just want to print; and not have to tend to the sock drawers of photographers who give away their work; then want to sue. If the web lifted images look like the normal clients work; and they are unmarked; do we printers tick them off each time with a bunch of ownership issue questions.? Alot of the images on the web are not stolen; they are gifts; unmarked; that show later on KaZaa in every PC in PoDunk to London. :)

[mbevel]

The industry I work for (recorded media - including DVDs and CDs) has been hit hard with pirated material. Reputable replicators take steps to ensure the person submitting the work is the legal copyright holder or has all necessary licenses (there are forms they require to be filled out by the requesting party prior to accepting any work). Yes, it's another step in the process, but it helps prevent them from inadvertently aiding a pirate and sends a message to their customers that they take their customers' copyright and intellectual property rights seriously. Perhaps copy shops should also implement such a program?

 

Of course, this wouldn't help in the case where the material is stolen for online content, but needed to reply to Kelly's implication that copy shops are somehow being asked to shoulder a heavy burden because folks just give their work away free by placing them on websites like Photo.net.

[laurie_m]

If I follow your argument, it's a gift if I make copies of all my music CD's and sell them for profit. If I leave my house unlocked, it's not a crime for someone to enter and take whatever they want.

 

I understand your point that not plastering watermarks or other identification on an image makes it easy for someone to steal it. However, using a watermark or other identification also makes it difficult for someone to critique it without distraction. A friend recently found one of his photos being used on the home page of a website. They took the image and cropped all but the center third of the image. A water mark in the corner would have done no good.

 

Posting images on the web is a risk we take. However, knowing the risk doesn't lessen the anger when some lowlife steals an image. Just because it's easy, doesn't make it right or legal.

[mondiani]

He don't claim that your image is his. He just says that he can make it looks better (hum hum what an arrogant @$$) Plus he is based in London which will make a trial quite complicated (time to subscribe to a photographer union)... The good point is that a man who can afford a digital hasselblad MUST pay royalties when using your photo (he may also afford a good lawer...)

[steve_bingham]

And when you right click the image it says he owns the copuright. As I see it he is in blatant violation and I intend to seek legal action. And yes the image is registered.

 

1- He is doing this to gain customers (for profit)

2- He did not get permission to advertise with my copywritten image

3- He claims he owns the copyright

 

Pretty serious stuff in my book - and far from accidental. When you advertise your services or product with an image you should ALWAYS have written permission. Basic rule in advertising! Much more serious then simply posting someone else's photograph for viewing.

[sl attanapola]

Here is some information about the UK copyright laws

 

 

http://www.artquest.org.uk/artlaw/copyright/oldphoto.htm

 

Here is the UK government website

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm

[j_doyle]

A troubling issue. Did a PhotoNet search, and found the following <i>lengthy</i> lists of discussions on photography copyright issues that I hope might help:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category?topic_id=2041&category=Copyright

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category?topic_id=23&category=Legal+(incl.+Copyright).

[kathywilson]

Also -- to clarify - You do NOT have to have an official US copyright for the work itself to be under copyright protection. The work is copyrighted the moment you create it. That being said, an official copyright declaration does have benefits - it establishes a *public record* that said creation is yours, and you usually have to have one of those to pursue legal options effectively. Also, holding an official copyright certificate may give you greater latitude in damage settlements. You can find US copyright law at the Library of Congress web site (www.loc.gov) and click on the Copyright link.

 

I knew when I posted here that having my images stolen was a possibility, but to avoid that you'd have to make them so small, or so low in resolution that stealing them would be more effort than it was worth... and that defeats the purpose most ppl have in posting here. It's unfortunate you've been found out by a weaselly thief :( Good luck with pursuing him - but I suspect you're going to be out of luck unless you have a lot of money to burn. It might be sufficient to type up a legal-looking letter from a mythical law office (or hell, have a lawyer write it) and mail it to him on thick paper with a cease and desist order.

[j_doyle]

Photoshop provides a way to embed an invisible watermark on photos. I'm new to all this, so don't know if there's a reason this wouldn't be considered an effective deterrent if not a perfectly defensible proof of authorship. Thanks for any thoughts on this.

[cappoldt]

Night zombies?!?!?!?!?

[john falkenstine]

Quite a well-traveled fellow, this photographer. Apparently he also has gone to Arizona to photograph Audis while they're being tested. I am sure that Audi would be interested as well in his "skills"

[pnital]

Steve, if you decide of a claim, Please let us know the result, I think it will be important to know. Thanks Pnina

[j_doyle]

Hi, Pnina. Did you get a chance to look at the long list of discussions I posted a few posts back? Also, I'm curious if you or others use the embedded and invisible copyright digimarc provided in Photoshop? Would that not help in a copyright infringement suit/claim? Thanks.

[jhenry]

<i>Photoshop provides a way to embed an invisible watermark on photos.</i> J. Doyle said <p> Quite interested to get this! never heard about this PNet option before though... how do I can get such invisible watermark?!

[j_doyle]

Jacques, I'm at work so don't have Photoshop in front of me, but I think if you go to "Filters" (kind of an odd place to put it) way towards the bottom is "Digimarc" which is where the embedded copyright functions are. Last night was the first time I'd seen this feature in PS, tried it, and (I hope I'm not giving you incorrect info) seems to work at both visible and not-visible embedded copyright image. You could also go to Digimarc website. I don't know if you have to buy Digimarc's program for it actually to work. I'm brand new to PS, so don't know if what I saw was only a demo or what.

[morgan_jones2]

The most important thing to do immediately is to notify in writing the offender that he has violated the copyright on that image. Send it through "official" channels,if possible (USPS, etc.), so you have a record of the action. If and when you take legal action, you can point to this document notification that you tried to prevent him from infringing on your rights, and thus strengthen your case.

[john falkenstine]

As a follow-up, it appears that the netsite Steve Bingham pointed out has ceased operation.

[dw fletcher]

I wouldn't send a letter yourself. I don't even know if you can send certified mail with return receipt internationally. Have an attorney do it, and have them write it up as not only a "cease and desist" but also request a settlement. Make sure they know you have a suit ready to file.