Stolen Picture - On professional website....

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Nikon

02/11/2006 06:35:29 AM · #1

How interesting is this.

my thumbnail of me

which I use for this site. It was taken by my wife about 5 years ago.

Then I was browsing norwegian photographer websites today... and what did I find.. but THAT SAME PICTURE.. as an example of his photography, in the 'youth' section. hmmmmm..... maybe a graphic designer error..????

The gallery
You have to follow that link, then click on 'ungdom' then it is the second picture from the left.

I guess I will email him and ask him what is up. I am guessing it must just be a mistake as he should have enough of his own work to put in there.

Apple iPhone

02/11/2006 06:40:26 AM · #2

Since the photographer is from Oslo , as you are... Call him and ask why your photo is on his web site...

02/11/2006 06:40:46 AM · #3

Allright.. a little more research. I am guessing he didn't steal it..that was a bit strong words. He probably purchased it from a stock site, such as dreamstime.
Dreamstime Picture
This could also prove true since he is using a little 'camera' thumbnail image when discussing what equipment he is using. Obviously another stock shot, as it is a nikon D1X (I think) camera while he uses a Canon 20D

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

02/11/2006 06:41:32 AM · #4

so....

I wonder if purcahsed photos are allowed to be used of examples of photography from the photographer.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

02/11/2006 06:48:14 AM · #5

Originally posted by leaf:

so....

I wonder if purcahsed photos are allowed to be used of examples of photography from the photographer.

a purchased photo can be used however the purchaser wants, as long as it within the limits of the license governing the purchase, and as long as no other regulatory laws are being broken. that's one of the main reasons for having model releases...

02/11/2006 06:52:57 AM · #6

well I guess I amtalking to myself here...

except the photographer states in the gallry that all these pictures are taken by himself.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Nikon

02/11/2006 06:54:40 AM · #7

So I guess my point in the end is....

That the photographer is displaying and stating that the photographs are taken by him, and shown as examples of his work.

I am not worried that he is making use of the picture (in an of itself)

Apple iPhone

02/11/2006 06:57:24 AM · #8

IF he's sayign that he took it, I dont see as ethical.. But if he bought it from the stock photo site...he can use it however he wants...

MrEd

Sony DSLR-A100

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Minolta

02/11/2006 06:58:36 AM · #9

Could be just me, but I still think it's wrong. Maybe not legally wrong, but morally.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

02/11/2006 07:02:50 AM · #10

perhaps the web designer just stuck it in there..... if he is doing photoshoots for tommy hilfigure, He shouldn't need stock photos to fill his personal gallery.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

02/11/2006 07:20:38 AM · #11

Tyler,

Dreamstime's terms of use agreement contains the following:

Buying the high-resolution image (purchasing the license) does not transfer the copyright. You may not claim that the image is your own and you may not sell, license for use, or in any way distribute the image for reuse. (emphasis added)

Do you have this photo listed on any other stock sites? If so, I'll be glad to help you check those license agreements as well. I am not a lawyer, but I strongly suspect you have grounds to bring or threaten a copyright infringement suit.

In addition, try contacting the district attorney or whatever the equivalent is in Oslo. Regardless of copyright, this is certainly false advertising and fraud, both of which are criminal offenses. For all we know, the Tommy Hilfiger claim is bogus as well.

Good luck,

Terry

Message edited by author 2006-02-11 07:21:37.

emorgan49

Olympus E-5

Olympus 50mm f/1.8 MF Normal Zuiko

02/11/2006 07:22:34 AM · #12

So many differnt styles of photography in his galleries! They all look like stock to me, except the Vietnam set which looks to be all the same photographer (without a good sense of light or composition). If he is such a terrific stock shooter he should be making a fortune at Getty.

02/11/2006 08:02:53 AM · #13

well I do agree that many of his pictures look very much lick stock, but I had a hard time finding from which stock site.

under the 'ungdom' catagory, the hands in the air with a rope.. is definatly more of a stock shot than a 'youth' shot... IMO

02/11/2006 08:06:19 AM · #14

Well I have it on Canstock and Fotolia as well... I have checked the others a bit, and I don't think it is on there (It is hard to remember with lots of images and lots of stock sites) :S
... which is also a problem.

Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 Zuiko Digital Zoom

02/11/2006 08:06:42 AM · #15

I have written an email though, asking what is up.

MPRPRO

Olympus E-5

02/11/2006 08:10:58 AM · #16

Originally posted by leaf:

perhaps the web designer just stuck it in there..... if he is doing photo shoots for Tommy Hilfiger, He shouldn't need stock photos to fill his personal gallery.

Hi Leaf,

I feel your pain. Ethics.....that can be in the words of Artyste Tendentious at best. I have been publishing on the web since you had to type HTML code in long hand. When I first started I copied a friend's web site word for word and then edited it for my information. This is completely wrong. We didn't have HTML editing software and who would ever find out? Well he let me do that to help me learn how to do it. But a few years later I was running a Web-Ring for Magicians and not only did someone copy my design but they also copied all my graphics too. I learned a lesson really fast at that time.

Once you put something on the internet it is out there for everyone to do with as they please. Oh it isn't right and in a case like yours I would make a stink with the guy who took your images, but really there is no law governing anything like this. I would rather hope there will never be since the secret to ruining anything good is make a law.

My lessons have taught me to upload anything with extreme low resolution, try to embed in all my work a name or some ID only you know and lastly never upload something you would not give away.

There are ways on your own web sites to protect your work, there are Java scripts, Flash as I use on my site, or you could password protect your work so you know who is entering, though this is not as practical.

Lastly and the most rude awakening I had was when I learned that some people on the internet are not all they are cracked up to be. That is when you see how unsafe it is to even upload an image in a medium where people rob at every chance and say all kinds of things which are not true for the sake of a quick buck.

Not look in the mirror and tell me with a straight face you never downloaded a program, a song, a movie and didnâ��t pay for it. Itâ��s like the Wild West on the internet.

On my personal website I used ACDC to make a Flash Movie Slide show to display my work, I disabled the right click of a mouse with a JAVA script and I disabled that little file saving bar that comes up in IE. I am sure people will still find a way to take my stuff around all of those precautions. Cost of doing business on the internet. Live and Learn.