I dont really understand what she's doing...if you steal someone's photos to sell them, I would think you would want to limit the credit to the author...what is she trying to accoplish? And how does that snapfish thingie work? Is that somehow connected to some account that she owns or...what?
I dont really understand what she's doing...if you steal someone's photos to sell them, I would think you would want to limit the credit to the author...what is she trying to accoplish? And how does that snapfish thingie work? Is that somehow connected to some account that she owns or...what?
She may not be aware of the option. If she is using the same browser as some of the people in this thread then she may just think she is showing her fave images and giving them credit. It may just need an email to her to make her aware of this ability.
I dont really understand what she's doing...if you steal someone's photos to sell them, I would think you would want to limit the credit to the author...what is she trying to accoplish? And how does that snapfish thingie work? Is that somehow connected to some account that she owns or...what?
She may not be aware of the option. If she is using the same browser as some of the people in this thread then she may just think she is showing her fave images and giving them credit. It may just need an email to her to make her aware of this ability.
She must be stupid not to know the option to order prints are on the page!
As I said before....give her the benefit of the doubt....she may not see it due to the browser she is using as has already been proved by other readers of this post in their inability to see that option!!!!
She must be stupid not to know the option to order prints are on the page!
As I said before....give her the benefit of the doubt....she may not see it due to the browser she is using as has already been proved by other readers of this post in their inability to see that option!!!!
Very true. Someone who owns a photo there should contact her just to see what's up.
Still, is that "order prints" button a standard on windows live? I used that thing for my photos back in 2004-05 before I knew of flickr and I dont remember anything like that...seems like selling your photos is an option that you should have to set, not just an oopsie that pops up out of nowhere...
I think most photo-storage/printing sites allow printing of posted photos by anyone with access to the directory. Posters at photo storage/gallery sites are often unaware that people viewing the photos can order prints or download them -- they are posting them in the context of "I found this cool image -- here, take a look." They are not spamming their friends with invites to buy fine art prints.
Rather than "confronting" this person, why not write and say something along the line of:
Dear ,
Wow! I'm glad you like my photo (see links below).
If any of your friends would like a high-quality print, have them go to this link at the DPC-associated prints gallery: .
Please remember that images posted at DPC are protected by copyright, and as such may not be sold, redistributed, or printed without written permission.
Sincerely,
Link to re-posted image:
Turn a "Federal case" into a marketing opportunity ...
I think most photo-storage/printing sites allow printing of posted photos by anyone with access to the directory. Posters at photo storage/gallery sites are often unaware that people viewing the photos can order prints or download them -- they are posting them in the context of "I found this cool image -- here, take a look." They are not spamming their friends with invites to buy fine art prints.
Rather than "confronting" this person, why not write and say something along the line of:
Dear ,
Wow! I'm glad you like my photo (see links below).
If any of your friends would like a high-quality print, have them go to this link at the DPC-associated prints gallery: .
Please remember that images posted at DPC are protected by copyright, and as such may not be sold, redistributed, or printed without written permission.
Sincerely,
Link to re-posted image:
Turn a "Federal case" into a marketing opportunity ...
that's what i did, and while i haven't generated any sales with it, the 'borrower' did put my link to dpc prints under the image, and i have had quite a few views from it. and it was all handled remarkably civilly.
I think most photo-storage/printing sites allow printing of posted photos by anyone with access to the directory. Posters at photo storage/gallery sites are often unaware that people viewing the photos can order prints or download them -- they are posting them in the context of "I found this cool image -- here, take a look." They are not spamming their friends with invites to buy fine art prints.
Rather than "confronting" this person, why not write and say something along the line of:
Dear ,
Wow! I'm glad you like my photo (see links below).
If any of your friends would like a high-quality print, have them go to this link at the DPC-associated prints gallery: .
Please remember that images posted at DPC are protected by copyright, and as such may not be sold, redistributed, or printed without written permission.
Sincerely,
Link to re-posted image:
Turn a "Federal case" into a marketing opportunity ...
Hehe, yeah I'd be proud before I would be mad, if I found an image of mine on a site like that...but then i'd do something about it, no doubt:P
Oddly, when you mouse over the photo on the main page, it tells you it's from DPC Prints (if it is). But when clicked for ordering...snapfish!! Guess she went lookint to buy and decided to steal.
This is a first for me, one of my photos has been stolen. I am pleased, I am thrilled, I am pissed. My name and copyright are clearly visible on the border. What do I do now?
I don't think she stole these to make profits on others work. She had to manually input the artist's name and where she found the image. She is trying to give credit where it is due. If you click any image and go to the order prints button it immediately announces it doesn't have enough detail for some sizes, which is probably all of them. To me it seems like it is just a private collection of favorites that we happened to find. Similar to when someone collects photos on flickr, the photos have less than a handful of views and then linked to here and suddenly they have 300 views in a week. If you don't want your photo there, look around the page, the person has a blog in which she links to images she likes on deviantart and other websites, maybe thats what these were used for. She also has a profile where you can send her a message. I have images pop up unexpectedly from time to time. I just email and ask them with a bit of force to take it down or link to my photo here. I have never had any problems and everyone has been nice about it. Hope this helps some on what to do, its just what I have done in the past.
I think everyone needs to take a breather and read up on copyright law...
A recent post at Photo Attorney does an excellent job of explaining the issue of Fair Use and how it applies to photographers. Simply displaying someone elses image, with credit, is well within the right of society. The "order prints" link is unfortunate, but I'd wager the blogger doesn't even know its there. After all, many of the images are watermarked and merely web resolution.
I Like this. Shows that we aren't upset with her but concerned. You are so smart! :-)) thanks!
Soni
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I think most photo-storage/printing sites allow printing of posted photos by anyone with access to the directory. Posters at photo storage/gallery sites are often unaware that people viewing the photos can order prints or download them -- they are posting them in the context of "I found this cool image -- here, take a look." They are not spamming their friends with invites to buy fine art prints.
Rather than "confronting" this person, why not write and say something along the line of:
Dear ,
Wow! I'm glad you like my photo (see links below).
If any of your friends would like a high-quality print, have them go to this link at the DPC-associated prints gallery: .
Please remember that images posted at DPC are protected by copyright, and as such may not be sold, redistributed, or printed without written permission.
Sincerely,
Link to re-posted image:
Turn a "Federal case" into a marketing opportunity ...
I think everyone needs to take a breather and read up on copyright law...
A recent post at Photo Attorney does an excellent job of explaining the issue of Fair Use and how it applies to photographers. Simply displaying someone elses image, with credit, is well within the right of society. The "order prints" link is unfortunate, but I'd wager the blogger doesn't even know its there. After all, many of the images are watermarked and merely web resolution.
How did you reach that conclusion from the linked article? In fact it specifically states that copyright give the holder exclusive rights to control the public display of their work. If that's not what's going on at the sit in question; what is?
I think most photo-storage/printing sites allow printing of posted photos by anyone with access to the directory. Posters at photo storage/gallery sites are often unaware that people viewing the photos can order prints or download them -- they are posting them in the context of "I found this cool image -- here, take a look." They are not spamming their friends with invites to buy fine art prints.
Rather than "confronting" this person, why not write and say something along the line of:
Dear ,
Wow! I'm glad you like my photo (see links below).
If any of your friends would like a high-quality print, have them go to this link at the DPC-associated prints gallery: .
Please remember that images posted at DPC are protected by copyright, and as such may not be sold, redistributed, or printed without written permission.
Sincerely,
Link to re-posted image:
Turn a "Federal case" into a marketing opportunity ...
Of course that assumes that you actually want to sell prints.
Of course that assumes that you actually want to sell prints.
I had the impression that many/most of the "stolen" photos in question had been aquired from the DPC Prints site, and were therefore already up for public sale.
Anyone notice if any of my pictures have been swiped (unlikely!)? If so, I may want to reword that suggestive mi$$ive slightly ... ;-)
How did you reach that conclusion from the linked article? In fact it specifically states that copyright give the holder exclusive rights to control the public display of their work. If that's not what's going on at the sit in question; what is?
Originally posted by Section 107 of the Copyright Act:
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
I'm lazy and this thread is too long to read, however firefox has no problem displaying the page :P note, 90% of the page is javascript, so if you have anything that blocks, filters, or otherwise mangles javascript you won't see it. I clicked on it, hoping that maybe it went right to dpcprints, so the photographer would get full credit and revenue however it goes through something called snapfish for the prints.
I think someone needs to *** their *** up their ***.
How did you reach that conclusion from the linked article? In fact it specifically states that copyright give the holder exclusive rights to control the public display of their work. If that's not what's going on at the sit in question; what is?
Originally posted by Section 107 of the Copyright Act:
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
Except that's not what's happening on with the site in question.
They've created a public display without the copyright owner's permission.
They're offering the work for sale without the copyright owner's permission, intentionally or not.
Since the file sizes are small, meaning the prints will look terrible, they are damaging the photographer's reputation by degrading their work.
