ALERT: Copyrights are being violated

[reprint]

New contact from GoDaddy:

Dear Barry Goggin,

 

We are not hosting this site. We are the domain name registrar only. We have no access to, nor jurisdiction over the content on this site. The hosting provider is the company responsible for the registered name servers available from a WHOIS lookup. Please submit your complaint to them based on their AUP. The name server information is listed below for your convenience.

 

 

Name Server: DNS.BIZCN.COM

Name Server: DNS.CNMSN.NET

 

 

 

Thank you for contacting Go Daddy.

 

 

Copyright Claims Department

GoDaddy.com

CopyrightClaims@GoDaddy.com

 

On the good side:

Hello Barry,

 

We have received your DMCA complaint dated February 13, 2008. We are

currently reviewing the complaint and will contact you when we have

completed processing the request.

 

We appreciate your patience during this time.

 

Regards,

The Google AdSense Team

 

Let it ride and see how it goes.

[joshroot]

Update from the photo.net side:

 

We are talking with our contacts at Google and are getting the issue directed to the correct person. Keep in mind that our contacts are advertising people (as we deal with them on that end often). So we have to get connected with the group that deals with this sort of stuff.

[dennis jones]

Josh, Bob, and Barry.... THANKS for the work.<p>

Jody...full credit means that some one can contact you to buy or use your work. I glad they did more than put your name on a folder like they did the rest of us...

[bobatkins]

As I suggested yesterday, what they've done is now to point both pic.playcomet.com and pic1.playcomet.com to the same server (yesterday "pic" was still pointing to a US server administered bu GoDaddy).

 

The server in question is 222.73.227.218, which is located somewhere in china and can be contacted via the address I gave WAY up at the top of this thread, namely:

 

Administrative Contact:

Bizcn Bizcn postmaster@bizcn.com

+86.5922577888 fax: +86.5922577111

<1F - 4F>, Software Technology Service Builing, Xiamen Software Park Xiamen Fujian 361005, cn

 

I suspect that it will be a waste of electons trying to reach them with any sort of complaint, but I guess it's worth a try. It's possible that someone there can read English and I suppose it's possible they might be receptive to copyright complaints, but I certainly wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to act.

 

In the meantime, I'd suggest that those upset by this file a complaint with Google for every page on which one of their copyrighted images appear. One complaint might not result in much action. 100 complaints might get their attention, especially if photo.net can get their AdSense rep to push the matter (I'm sure photo.net has a dedicated AdSense rep).

 

If people want to give their images away in return for "free publicity", let me know and I'll start up a site using their images...and give them full credit (but no money).

[wogears]

Five of mine. Surely they jest? What abominable taste they have. WHERE ARE THE REST? (Sorry. Humor seems the only response at this point.)

 

I posted the following 'comment' on each.

 

"The egg-roll eating vermin who run this execrable site have stolen my image."

 

The hilarious thing is that they require me to fill out an anti-bot text box which requires an image to be read by a human. The NERVE!

[bobatkins]

Here's anothet possible avenue of complaint. If you do a Google search on your name and your images on playcomet.com turn up, there's a link at the bottom of the page to click on if you are dissatisfied with the results of your seach. That brings up a text box which allows you to tell Google what you think about the search results.

 

While you may think this is "free publicity" for your images, it's not. They don't link to you or your website or provide any way to get in touch with you. They're simply ripping you off. Photo.net provides MUCH better publicity for you!

 

I went through a whole bunch of their images and the ones with names attached were ALL stolen from photo.net. Every single one.

 

If Google get enough compliants about the search results, it's possible they may take some action regarding the ranking of links from playcomet.com, at least until they stop wholesale copyright violation as their business model!

 

Just a thought.

[bobatkins]

I'll leave that one up to Josh to answer. He's more keyed into what's going on behind the scenes with all this than I am. I'm sure if he thinks action by members is needed, he'll make sure everyone knows about it.

[j.kivekas]

I would like to remind everyone here that The USA has been a party to the Berne Convention since 1989 (and must thus obey the internationally accepted practises stated in Berne convention). Registration of photos is not a must as long as fatherhood can be proven definitely. pic. playcomet states the photographer in question and that already is sufficient proof of fatherhood.<p>

- <a href= "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works">Berne convention at Wikipedia</a>

[aepelbacher]

<p>I hate to bring something new in here ... when I did a search on my name as suggested above, I came on this site:

 

<p><a href="http://plfoto.info/">http://plfoto.info/</a>

 

<p>It looks like photo.net, but has different URL's.... Josh - is this something official, or what?

[aepelbacher]

By the way - that plfoto.info site has my most recent images, posted last night.

[oofoto]

Strange one that plfoto.info as it's registered and hosted in Poland:

 

Domain ID:D6395019-LRMS

Domain Name:PLFOTO.INFO

Created On:15-Sep-2004 13:33:35 UTC

Last Updated On:07-Sep-2007 06:41:33 UTC

Expiration Date:15-Sep-2008 13:33:35 UTC

Sponsoring Registrar:Spot Domain LLC dba Domainsite.com (R263-LRMS)

Status:CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED

Status:CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED

Status:CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED

Status:CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED

Registrant ID:dsite-797690

Registrant Name:Szambo Nurek

Registrant Organization:Full Wypas Edition

Registrant Street1:Grzybna 31/337

Registrant Street2:

Registrant Street3:

Registrant City:Chuj Wielki

Registrant State/Province:WM

Registrant Postal Code:31337

Registrant Country:PL

Registrant Phone:+263.666437456

Registrant Phone Ext.:

Registrant FAX:

Registrant FAX Ext.:

Registrant Email:

Admin ID:dsite-797691

Admin Name:Szambo Nurek

Admin Organization:Full Wypas Edition

Admin Street1:Grzybna 31/337

Admin Street2:

Admin Street3:

Admin City:Chuj Wielki

Admin State/Province:WM

Admin Postal Code:31337

Admin Country:PL

Admin Phone:+263.666437456

Admin Phone Ext.:

Admin FAX:

Admin FAX Ext.:

Admin Email:

Billing ID:dsite-797693

Billing Name:Szambo Nurek

Billing Organization:Full Wypas Edition

Billing Street1:Grzybna 31/337

Billing Street2:

Billing Street3:

Billing City:Chuj Wielki

Billing State/Province:WM

Billing Postal Code:31337

Billing Country:PL

Billing Phone:+263.666437456

Billing Phone Ext.:

Billing FAX:

Billing FAX Ext.:

Billing Email:

Tech ID:dsite-797692

Tech Name:Szambo Nurek

Tech Organization:Full Wypas Edition

Tech Street1:Grzybna 31/337

Tech Street2:

Tech Street3:

Tech City:Chuj Wielki

Tech State/Province:WM

Tech Postal Code:31337

Tech Country:PL

Tech Phone:+263.666437456

Tech Phone Ext.:

Tech FAX:

Tech FAX Ext.:

Tech Email:

Name Server:FNS1.SGH.WAW.PL

Name Server:FNS2.SGH.WAW.PL

 

Looks like a copy until you start moving through the menus then it reverts back to photo.net..

[wogears]

Yes, the 'plfoto' thing is a set of links to Photo.Net. More evil. Literally hijacks the whole site.

[j.kivekas]

I got this reply:<p>

Dear Juha Kivekas,<p>

 

We are not hosting this site. We are the domain name registrar only. We have no access to, nor jurisdiction over the content on this site. The hosting provider is the company responsible for the registered name servers available from a WHOIS lookup. Please submit your complaint to them based on their AUP. The name server information is listed below for your convenience.<p>

 

 

Name Server: DNS.BIZCN.COM<br>

Name Server: DNS.CNMSN.NET<p>

 

 

 

Thank you for contacting Go Daddy.<p>

 

 

Copyright Claims Department<br>

GoDaddy.com<br>

CopyrightClaims@GoDaddy.com<br>

[joshroot]

<i>"It looks like photo.net, but has different URL's.... Josh - is this something official, or what?"</i>

<p>

No, not at all.

<p>

this happens from time to time. People try to swipe the whole site and insert their own ads and what not. They are usually easy to block. If you'll notice, there don't seem to be any photos that have made it through, Jin probably blocked them already.

[photis santamouris]

Why all the fuss?You can even sign up and move to your own page in a very slow,smooth,almost sexual way,when you start with plfoto.info.Well this is ridiculous,intolerable, and makes me feel more sick than the previous days."Paradise lost"is my most recent submission(?),on Feb 12th.You can a leave a comment there.I just can't stand anymore sitting here and reading all that happens.

[WJT]

that's an old problem that was noted just about exactly one year ago in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JtyF" >this thread</a> by me. That site was deemed as not being too serious an issue because it was just a mirror of the original site, unlike the scum-bag site in China that has actually ripped us all off. <br><br>

<b>Josh</b>, it's your call, but I'm all for contacting as many of our members as possible that are affected by the playcomet incident. Regards, and Happy Valentine's Day everyone!

[EricM]

"...but I'm all for contacting as many of our members as possible that are affected by the playcomet incident."

 

this would be a lot of work and isn't something I'd expect from PN (or any portal hole to the net) just because the images were harvested from here.

 

It is however worth putting this as a sticky on every forum front page and not just the current two as I imagine there are a great deal of users that skip past these two forums.

[DB_Gallery]

OK, this is really disturbing.

 

I don't see any of mine on there yet so I would like my entire portfolio on here temporarily

shut off from public view until this can be resolved. If I can't have this done, then I have to

delete all my images from P.Net, period.

 

When I started a high end rights managed stock agency 4 years ago, I went totally private

with it, two passwords just to get to the thumbnails and my name is not on the site

anywhere so it can not be linked. So maybe I lost some sales that would have happened if

my site were visible, but this kind of thing will not happen.

 

I'm afraid that If I can't get my portfolio blocked for the time being on P.Net, I need to

kindly bow out. This is my livelihood here.

[tomaso nigris]

I am not a professional Photographer, they have stolen about 20 of my photos, because photos is not a business for me, If I ma disappointed for their behaviour I am proud that some of my photos has been selected. I am very sorry for professional photographer and I hope that being China in WTO something can be done, I have the same problem in my business Chines copied evrything without any rispect and somebody should stop them.

[tomaso nigris]

http://www.sumabout.com/about/fishing+net. Also in this website they stolen my photos.

[dorcas]

Hi I've only just joined and they have taken 2 of mine from here and I recognise quite a lot of recent images from here too.

 

Dorcas

[photis santamouris]

I've deleted hundreds of images , hidden most of my marketable folders and reduced the size and dpi(up to 3dpi) on what remains here.

<p>KEEP WALKING.

[paulstenquist]

I'm somewhat surprised at the paranoia here. People deleting their images. Making them thumbnail size. Even an image 900 pixels tall is useless for any commercial use. The only downside I saw to these images being posted on the China website was that the environment there was somewhat sleazy. Other than that, exposure is good. I work in the advertising business, and we frequently swipe pics from a variety of sites for comping. And more and more, we end up buying a high res version of the comp image we took from the web. But if the pics too small, it won't be used. If it's not here, it gets no exposure.

 

I've sold a number of photos through photo.net exposure. I have photos on stock house sites that are duplicated here. More exposure is good. No exposure is bad.

 

A hidden stock house that requires passwords? Doesn't sound like a profitable enterprise to me.

[vincetylor]

Daniel Bayer,

 

My opinion, of your photo related opinions, just went into the dumpster.

 

I'd rather people not copy my images, and post for other purposes in other places either.

 

But it happens all the time. And guess what, this is my livelihood too. But for some

strange reason (though it happens all the time) it has not hurt my livelihood ONE BIT. And

hard to believe, but quite the opposite has been the case. I have made tens of thousands

of dollars in stock sales because of posting images on Photo.net. Even though a few less

scrupulous ones have done the theft thingy many times. I also sell with an agency, and

have my own agency.

 

 

Now, as mentioned far above, one fine chap decided to SELL my fine art images, with HIS

name on them, on a very large and popular art selling website. But because I post publicly,

somebody else let me know about it. And when I stuck it to him, he had the balls to say I

stole his images and that he would take ME to court. After providing photos of the original

slides and giving this guy a thorough public spanking, he eventually apologized and was

deleted from the site altogether. Now THAT is a case worth going after.

 

A local real estate company used one of my images to promote the island without getting

consent. We checked out a few details about how long they had been doing this, sent

them a bill for $500 and was paid promptly. Once again, that is another cause worth

fighting for IMO. And others similar.

 

I respect anybody's rights to do what they want if they find their images have been illegally

used. But in my opinion, some of you folks are flat out Over-Reacting here. These are very

small J-pegs, they have our name credit on the photos that I have seen and you can leave

a comment on the photos if you wish. Folks, you can steal images right off of Corbiss,

Getty, Pacific Stock etc websites right now, if you wish. Yet, amazingly these largest of

stock companies today still post publicly and are still rolling in the cash. Go after these

folks the best way you can. But to threaten removal altogether is only hurting yourselves

in the end.

 

 

I'd prefer that people not steal my images either. But it happens from time to time. That is

life, folks.

 

 

But this situation here is not worth taking everything down altogether. Is like throwing the

proverbial baby out with the bath water. What's the point of taking images at all?

Obviously you wanted them to be seen publicly which is why you posted them here to

begin with.

 

Here's an idea then; Why not just keep all these wonderful images under your bed for the

rest of your lives. That should be a safe enough place. Then you no longer have to worry

about people using your images without your permission. Problems solved.

[joshroot]

<b>HEADS-UP EVERYONE:</b>

<p>

This thread has gotten really long and I get the feeling that people are not reading it all the way through. And so, I have created a <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OQla">new thread</a> that summarizes the events thus far and photo.net's response/opinions on them.

<p>

Please move all discussion to the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OQla">new thread</a> as I will be closing this one shortly.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00OQla">CLICK HERE (or on the words 'new thread' above) to go to the new thread.</a>

<p>

Thank you.