Update on Playcomet image theft situation...

[joshroot]

The <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OLRb">original

thread</a> was getting too long and people were not reading all the way through.

So I am consolidating the information into this new thread and will be closing

the old one.

<p>

For those who are unaware, <a href="http://pic.playcomet.com/">this website</a> (which appears to be Chinese)

has swiped images from a number of photo.net members and is using them for their site's galleries. All images are credited to their original photographers, but this is

very much illegal usage and a violation of various copyright laws. There appear

to be many images on the site that were not taken from photo.net, but there are a significant number of images there that ARE from our members. So at the very least, it is

quite troublesome to the photo.net staff and we are looking into what methods

can be taken to help prevent this in the future.

<p>

The site was originally hosted by <a href="http://www.godaddy.com/">Godaddy</a>

on servers in the US. A couple of smart users noticed this and posted godaddy's

copyright violation complaint method. Godaddy pulled the site down off it's

servers in response and said that it would look into the situation.

Unsurprisingly, the site reappeared within 48 hours on chinese servers. As there

is very little legal action that can be taken against a chinese company, it is

doubtful that the chinese server company will be as receptive as Godaddy was to

our complaints.

<p>

Other members pointed out that the site was running advertising from Google's

Adsense and posted the method to make a copyright complaint through the Adsense

program. Our lawyer and advertising guru also brought the issue to the attention

of their contacts at google. The response was that policy had to be followed,

and a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) violation report had to be filled

out and submitted. But that they would keep an eye out specifically for these

reports coming in from photo.net members about the playcomet.com violation.

<p>

This appears to be working. As of this morning, I do not see any google

advertising on the playcomet site. The code for the ads is still in the page

source, but there do not appear to be any ads on the site. However, much like

with the server situation, there is little stopping the company from switching

to a different adserver for it's revenue. That having been said, many of the

best adservers are located in the USA and will probably be receptive to the same

sort of DMCA complaints that Google was.

<p>

<h3>Some Questions:</h3>

<p>

<b>Is photo.net going to contact all of it's members regarding this problem?</b>

<p>

No. Quite frankly, this problem affects a fairly small percentage of photo.net's

total members. And, as a huge percentage of those affected are already following

the issue in the various forum threads, we think that is a better way to go. It

is a really big process to email every photo.net member.

<p>

<b>What can be done to stop this in the future?</b>

<p>

A number if users have asked why photo.net does not disable right-click or use

some other method to prevent images from being lifted from the site. As was

discussed in the previous thread, actions like disabling right-click just slow

down the theft process by a few seconds. It is worth looking into ways to make

it harder for places like playcomet to download images off of photo.net. But I

am not going to waste site resources, slow site performance, or spend programmer

time on "solutions" that do not do anything to stop this kind of theft. That is

a waste of time and I will just have to keep answering the same questions when

the efforts aren't successful.

<p>

<b>What is the bottom line regarding image theft on the internet?</b>

<p>

Photo.net is here for photographers who want to share their work with the

community and with the world. As I said above, we are willing to look into

methods that will help prevent problems like this in the future. But we will not

make photo.net a "lockdown fortress" that requires layers of registration and

passwords to simply look at the site. That is not in our best interests and it

is not in the best interest of a majority of our members.

<p>

The only way to guarantee that your images won't end up on another website is to

not put them on the web anywhere. Not on photo.net. Not on Flickr. Not on your

own website. If your images are online, they can be stolen if someone wants them

badly enough. If they are not online they cannot. Most photographers find that

the exposure that they get from having images on the web far outweights any risk

of image theft such as is discussed here. Each photographer needs to look at the

risk and reward of having images online and decide if the reward is worth the risk.

[joshroot]

Here are the specific instructions received from Google on how to file a DMCA complaint:

<p>

<i>It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the text of which can be found at the U.S. Copyright Office website: <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/">http://www.copyright.gov/</a>) and other applicable intellectual property laws. In this case, this means that if we receive proper notice of infringement, we will forward that notice to the responsible web site publisher.

<p>

To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a written communication (by fax or regular mail, not by email) that sets forth the items specified below. Please note that pursuant to that Act, you may be liable to the alleged infringer for damages (including costs and attorneys' fees) if you materially misrepresent that you own an item when you in fact do not. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether you have the right to request removal from our service, we suggest that you first contact an attorney. To expedite our ability to process your request, please use the following format (including section numbers):<p>

1. Identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon. For example, "The copyrighted work at issue is the text that appears on http://www.legal.com/legal_page.html."

<p>2. Identify the material that you claim is infringing upon the copyrighted work listed in item #1 above. You must identify each page that allegedly contains infringing material by providing its URL.

<p>3. Provide information reasonably sufficient to permit Google to contact you (email address is preferred).

<p>4. Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing webpages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law."

<p>5. Include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."

<p>6. Sign the paper.

<p>7. Send the written communication to the following address:

<p>

Google, Inc.<br>

Attn: AdSense Support, DMCA complaints<br>

1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View CA 94043

<p>

OR Fax to:

<p>

(650) 618-8507, Attn: AdSense Support, DMCA complaints</i>

[WJT]

<b>Josh</b>, thanks for summarizing the content of this situation and starting the new thread; that should make it more readable for all. I still feel that you should disseminate the critical points of this to more members, many of whom are being affected by the thievery but who do not read the Forums. Perhaps you could simply include your opening statement of this thread in the periodic PhotoNet email that is sent out regularly to everyone. Granted, the several hundred members who have had images ripped from here may be only a small percentage of the total of the vast PhotoNet Community, but it still comprises a significant number of people.<br><br>

 

I respectfully disagree with you that the stolen images have proper credits to the original photographer. Yes, our names are associated with each of the stolen images but, for me, that does not constitute a proper credit. There is no contact information and no copyright statement. While it is very easy for someone to just Google <i>my</i> name and be directed to a legitimate site that I am posting on (such as here) others with less unique monikers would have a big problem.<br><br>

 

In the older thread a couple of members had said that they intend to take down all of their PhotoNet contributions until this situation is resolved. While I can understand their concern I <b>do not</b> recommend doing that. The financial impact from this incident will most likely not be an issue for me and to remove what I have had on-line for so long would be a mistake. I am currently working on a sale that was directly initiated by my exposure on PhotoNet; I would not have that if no one saw my work.<br><br>

 

Thank you for what you, the PhotoNet team, and all of the other members who have responded so well have done to help. Please keep working on a resoultion to this incident. Regards.

[joshroot]

<i>"I respectfully disagree with you that the stolen images have proper credits to the original photographer."</i>

<p>

I did not intend to imply that <i>proper</i> credit had been given to photographers or to defend the actions of playcomet by saying that they had done anything legally. I was trying to emphaize that despite the fact that playcomet had credited the original photographers, that their actions were still a violation of copyright law. Many people sill (incorrectly) think that if someone credits you, that they can use your images.

<p>

I hope that clears up any confusion.

[WJT]

My error, thanks for the clarification. Regards.

[paulstenquist]

I added contact information in the comment box below each of my photoes on Playcomet. I also indicated that they were being displayed without permission.

[jodymelanson]

Let us see what happens here?

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6953682

[dave_nitsche]

Lot's of interesting comments in that other thread. I've never cared about my 600 pixel images being ripped. I've always considered it advertising. Everyone always asks "why do you put that stupid vanity line in every image" well, if they're gonna rip it, might as well put your name on it. Very, very few take my name off and if they do, I do go after them.

 

Want something to be real afraid of? Sell a 20x24 in a gallery and have the owner shoot it with a 23mp camera and start selling large quality prints of it half way around the world. So instead of someone lifting a $5 print, I've got them lifting a $1500 print. Took 6 months and a ton of cash, but I got a ton of cash back so it's all cool. Turns out his sales were better than mine. Go figure.

 

That's the real threat for me so I just can't get too bunged up over a 72dpi image being lifted. I've had more sales based on my images posted in other people's blogs than anything else. Cost of doing business.

 

I know many will argue that point, but it's just the way I see it. I can understand others being upset it just doesn't bother me that much.

 

Dave

[bobatkins]

It's the principle. Would you be upset if someone held you up but only took $1 from your wallet? No real damage done so no real need to get upset?

 

They're making money from the images (or they were before their AdSense account was suspended), but the photographers are getting nothing in return. Not even a link (not that that would make it acceptable either).

[oofoto]

Looking at mine that were grabbed then it may not be a bot although if it is a bot it is doing it based on ratings.

I don't make any money but I don't like the idea of not being able to remove them from the web if I want/need to. People downloading them by right click is different IMO. I often right click save pics from PN that inspire me.

[dave_nitsche]

Bob, I understand but I've been dealing with this for about 5 years now and there's no real way of fighting it accept having nothing on the net. As long as screen grab programs exist anything is open for theft, even flash sites aren't safe.

 

So, you have a few options.

 

1) Post nothing on the net.

2) Post so small you can't even really view it

3) Spend 20 hours a day finding the stuff and fighting with the ISP's

4) Figure it as the cost of doing business and hope the advertising improves sales.

 

For me, number 4 has worked and worked well. A few of the galleries I've hung in found out about me through internet sites. I know for a fact at least 10 magazines have printed work of mine because of my portfolio here on p.net. The biggest was a cover/full spread interview in an Asian magazine that payed me thousands to do it.

 

Is theft right? Hell no, and when someone comes up with a way to fight it I'll be right there with you, but as soon as one goes down, 3 more pop up. Either find a way to use it to your advantage or just remove your images from the internet. Right now, that's the only real option I can see.

[reprint]

Dave,

While I respect your choice, choosing to email or fax a DMCA to either the host or adsense takes a couple of minutes of your time, nothing like 20 hours. I continue to post etc as I always do but I also file a DMCA where appropriate.

For me that thread was about showing people how they can make a difference with very little effort and still enjoy posting their photos and getting on with their lives. I posted the draft DMCA so people in the future can easily just fill it in and email the host or Google.

 

When there is something simple and straightforward and doesn't take much time and could potentially send a message or at least make it harder for people like this, then why not make the effort?

 

I hope this experience has shown people that they do not have to choose between having no images online or not bothering at all with who does what. There is a happy medium and it will not stop you from enjoying your photography or your interactions online.

[sasha_bulovic]

Please see this location... I think that members here will find some of thier work...

http://www.fotothing.com/thunderboympm/

 

For this image I know for sure that is stolen from here...

http://www.fotothing.com/thunderboympm/photo/19f85d2bd9723995e77b21a5eaab766f/

[mr. sullen]

I think people forget we are dealing with a Communist country.

[michaelging]

Josh, I really appreciate your doing what you can to try and prevent people from taking photos. I have many of my photos that have been taken off Photo.net on web sites all over Asia, SE Asia, India and Eastern Europe and these are the ones that you can find because they actualy give your credit,many do not. Here is a example of one that has my photos.

 

http://cafe.chosun.com/club.menu.bbs.read.screen?page_num=3&p_club_id=saintcolumn&p_menu_id=18&message_id=307543

 

I think if you post photos and people can download them then they will, one way or another. Again thanks for doing what you can.

[paulstenquist]

I didn't cry wolf, Marc. I alerted people to the existence of the site. To me, the only negative is that it's a sleazy environment.

 

All commercial enterprises that use photos in promotions begin with comp work. Comp work is used as a demonstration of what the final piece might look like. For the comps, the art directors search the web for low-res pictures that will illustrate the idea. They look at stock sites, which allow you to download low-res versions for comping, flickr, photo.net and numerous other sites. As I said, sometimes the comp photo is well received, and the agency will attempt to purchase the high-version. Photos that have not been purchased are never used in published work, only for demonstration. If the photographer is unwilling to sell the hi-res version, the agency will sometimes shoot something similar or look for something else.

 

I don't personally use photos for comping, because I'm a writer. But all of the art directors I've worked with harvest comp photos from the internet. Everywhere. Every ad agency and numerous other pubs. It's how things are done, Marc.

 

Using what's on the internet for idea generation is valid. Using it for personal profit or attempting to sell it without first purchasing rights would not be.

 

If you want people to stay away from your images, Marc, take them off the internet and hide them under our bed.

[paulstenquist]

No. Hide them under YOUR bed:-)

[WJT]

Marc, I appreciate and respect your input in this situation but I have to say that I, for one, am <i>very</i> grateful for Paul bringing the incident to our attention. To liken his action to one of Aesop's fables is quite inaccurate. <br><br>

Again, I feel that the best course that we can all steer is to calmly remain on track and concentrate on the original subject of this thread, specifically, the thieving, sleazy, no-good-rotten playcomet site. Well, now you know where I am coming from ;0) Regards.

[antoniobassiphotography]

Josh, Paul and all the others I might have offended or just not have been fair to, sorry for my

stupid reaction last week but I was so pissed off about one of my dearest images being

stolen that I just acted by impulse... Anyways, I hope you accept my apologies for the stupid

behavior. I deleted all my images and re-uploaded some at 400 pixels resolution and with

watermark. I know, they are a bit small but big enough to get a pretty good idea and not

enough to be used for anything. Now they can take them and the watermark will do me some

publicity.<div></div>

[aepelbacher]

I appreciate your comment, Antonio ... and I apologize for my extreme sarcasm....

[antoniobassiphotography]

Lou Ann

 

no apology needed, after the amazing work done by the admin guys and the emails of

support received I realized how wrong I was I how much I missed sharing thoughts with you

guys.

[robert_g.1]

I wonder why only some of my rated photos show up on this site and none of the unrated? maybe the unrated cannot be traced or tracked ? I guess they did not go to my porfolio to gets these then ? Is there something about rated photos that they like better or what gives here?

Im sure photo theft is much more common than we find out !

[tholte]

Robert, if you would like to know who is lifting your photos and posting them on the internet, google your name in quotation marks and see what pops up.

[robert_g.1]

Google does not show everyone that lifts a photo , I visited the site in question in this thread , searched my name and most of my rated photos appeared , but not on google ! So Tim you know not what you are saying.

I have more likely thousands of photo s all over the net .

[michaelging]

Robert, Tim did not say that search would show "every" photo on the internet,he told you how to look for some of them. These are the ones who are kind enough to give you credit. The bad news is that you have lost control of who sees your photos and where they can be found. The good news is that thousands more people who will never click on your gallery here at PN, will be able to appreciate nature as seen though your eyes and camera, and will be able to so, long after you are gone.