DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> Are my photos being ripped off?
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 91, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 01/07/2006 09:41:46 AM · #51
Yup. Hold tight everyone. Let's give Bob a chance to settle this and to give an update. I think we can all respect that.
 01/07/2006 09:59:35 AM · #52
I have to say there are a lot of issues here - the fact that the site provides a link for anyone to order prints of these photos without the photographer's permission is a big one. These are commercial quality photos that have monetary value - this is robbing the photographer of his deserved income from the photos. To use them without permission violates international copyright laws.
 01/07/2006 10:13:59 AM · #53
Originally posted by Mary Ann Melton:
I have to say there are a lot of issues here - the fact that the site provides a link for anyone to order prints of these photos without the photographer's permission is a big one. These are commercial quality photos that have monetary value - this is robbing the photographer of his deserved income from the photos. To use them without permission violates international copyright laws.


You raise a good point, but looking at the site I think that ordering capability is a built-in feature of the gallery software and not one that the site owner intentionally turned on. In any case, I did try going to one of the sites, and due to the image size it won't let you order anything larger than wallet-size. There's also no markup on the photos, so the site owner does not appear to be trying to profit off these.

In either case I think the best thing we can do is give Bobster some time to get this issue resolved.

~Terry
 01/07/2006 10:41:31 AM · #54
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Thanks!
What bothers me isn't the handful of photos that have been nicked from myself, it's the considerable number of other photos that have presumably been stolen from quite a number of different photographers, and I'm not quite sure what to do about that.


What truly bothers me is the lack of credit/authorship. I know fan sites that use various Star Wars imagery etc. And I believe George Lucas' take is one of the best in the industry. Free to use...just don't profit.

But at the very least they need to credit where credit is due. On the same hand, I might not be too ready to force their removal. But rather, demand credit, a link to your website, email, etc. And help her implement better authentication methods.


Message edited by author 2006-01-07 10:48:03.
 01/07/2006 10:46:17 AM · #55
Originally posted by Megatherian:
The burden of attaining copyright on the photos is on YOU


She comments that they are submitted to her, it is very easy for someone to submit them and claim that they took the images, etc.

And although I don't think she is observing best practices, there could be more innoncence. On the same hand, the proper thing to do is simply to a) offer to remove them or b) offer to give credit, link to website, etc.
 01/07/2006 10:54:21 AM · #56
Its your own fault Bob. If you were not so talented then no one would nick your photos!! Something I dont have to worry about as mine are cr*p!!

Seriously though, apart from those ugly watermarks etc what can a person do? I have read many threads on here about people's photos being nicked.

It's sad but there are some dodgy people out there who have no scruples or morals when it comes to stooping as low as possible by stealing someones images.

Best of luck Bob

Mike


01/07/2006 10:59:18 AM · #57
Originally posted by MikeOwens:
Seriously though, apart from those ugly watermarks etc what can a person do? I have read many threads on here about people's photos being nicked.

I remember reading about digital watermarks before (i.e. the type that are hidden in the image data) - Are they still used?
 01/07/2006 11:07:18 AM · #58
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by MikeOwens:
Seriously though, apart from those ugly watermarks etc what can a person do? I have read many threads on here about people's photos being nicked.

I remember reading about digital watermarks before (i.e. the type that are hidden in the image data) - Are they still used?


I think there are still used but I have no idea how to put them in a photo. Perhaps you need some specialsied software or something?

I am certain someone on the site will be able to tell us


01/07/2006 11:24:45 AM · #59
Man I want to say good luck! did you take more than just those 2 Pics? because i know you can cu and paste off this site and i dont know if this has anything to do with it, but some sites have there logo on it some were or across the pic once uploaded to there site......Could DP stamp our stuff? like i said i dont know it has to do witht he issue or not. I love your work man i just got a chance to look at your work Nice!!
 01/07/2006 11:26:17 AM · #60
DigiMark's system works fairly well. I have used it - it tracks everyplace on the web your photo shows up so if it is somewhere you didn't authorize you know it the same day.
 01/07/2006 11:30:35 AM · #61
Originally posted by Alienyst:
DigiMark's system works fairly well. I have used it - it tracks everyplace on the web your photo shows up so if it is somewhere you didn't authorize you know it the same day.


What sort of costs are we talking about for this?

thanks
Mike

01/07/2006 12:06:20 PM · #62
Well, I've been away from this issue since my last post but I've just sent another email. Thanks for the ongoing support from this lovely community.
I should add that so far I emailed one image agency whose photos were all over the website, and they emailed me back to thank me and that they were getting their legal department on it to issue a cease and desist notification.
It is possible that they had overlooked a paid account to use these photos, but the evidence is starting to weigh against this website.
 01/07/2006 12:20:49 PM · #63
Originally posted by MikeOwens:
Originally posted by Alienyst:
DigiMark's system works fairly well. I have used it - it tracks everyplace on the web your photo shows up so if it is somewhere you didn't authorize you know it the same day.


What sort of costs are we talking about for this?

thanks
Mike


Here's a link to the tracking system:
DigiMarc MyPictureMarc

Prices reange from $79-$499 depending on how many images you'd like to protect.
 01/07/2006 12:38:13 PM · #64
Thanks for the link Dan.

Mike


01/07/2006 09:37:06 PM · #65
Here's what you can do when someone steals your copyright:

nothing

Someone stole my entire website design once and I couldnt do anything about it. In fact it happened again after that too I think. Im hardly likely to spend hundreds of pounds on solictors, which in reality is the only thing you can do, (or lawyers as you say in usa if you from there)

So basically youll just have to get over it. Try signing his email up for millions of spam things, that might help :)
 01/07/2006 10:22:39 PM · #66
Most ISPs react very quickly if one of their clients is infringing copyright. ISPs usually pull the plug very quickly if the webmaster drags their heels. Sites like Metafilter (I'm a member) are good for getting the web community on your side if someone steals from your site.
 01/07/2006 10:24:15 PM · #67
Woah, just noticed who you are! I'm surprised to see you around here! Glad you took it all on the chin.
 01/07/2006 10:58:16 PM · #68
I got a LONG reply from the owner of the site... I was told they'd prefer if it wasn't posted here, but I think I can sum it up as 'why have you picked on me?'

Here's my reply:

Thanks for removing the photos.

Here's why I have a crusade against your website:

. You have a strong anti-stealing sentiment on your website.
. Your photos look at first glance as if you have taken them.
. You have heavy branding on the photos.
. The photos which are credited are not credited clearly.
. To be frank, I don't believe you have bought many of the photos as you have claimed.
. It should not be up to the photographers to make sure their photos are being used properly.
. Stealing photos is wrong and cannot be rationalised or excused.

Really you are a victim of your success, as your site recieves high Google rankings and is very professionally carried out. That's why I believe it's important for you to run it with integrity and to make sure that the images that many people will come across are properly credited.

Some of your other points:
I don't make a lot of money from my photography, and in fact I do give my photos to many fan sites and other sources for free. As I've mentioned, I like people to enjoy my photos and free publicity is good. It's not for you to lecture me in any way. It was your aggressive policy on people taking photos from your site that made me single you out, as I found it hypocritical.
I actually NEVER sell my photos from gigs unless I give some of the money to the artist(s) involved. This happens rarely as I usually don't have the time to set this up. I don't even give photos to my friends in case I take money away from the artists' own marketing. I have strict rules about this. And if I sell the photos to press or for editorial, my rates are reasonable.
If I see my photos pop up on fan websites, I might politely ask for a credit. But your website has harvested photos on a massive scale and I don't believe many of them are being used legally. They appear pretty much at the top of every Google query, and I think photographers and agencies are being abused here because their photos are not being credited.

At the end of the day, if you are telling people not to steal your images, but you are using stolen images, what you are doing is wrong and there is no excuse, rationalisation or shift of blame you can use for it.

If you want to continue this discussion, I really would prefer it happened on the forums. I will respect your wish for your email to remain private, but I prefer this to remain as an open debate. This is as much in your interests as mine, as any discussions can remain balanced with both sides weighed up.

Bob
 01/10/2006 09:24:29 AM · #69
So, any more news Bob?
 01/10/2006 10:23:55 AM · #70
Well, my photos were taken off and more emails were sent. I've stopped replying to them though because it's obvious that we're not going to agree and unless it's on a public forum it seems pretty pointless.
One thing I will ask though is that if anybody really wants to contact the web-owner, please don't do it anonymously. I think she got fed up with anonymous hate-mail which wasn't the best way forward. Thanks for the concern though everyone. :-)
 01/24/2006 09:56:26 PM · #71
Interesting development:

I received a few emails from image agencies I alerted stating that the photos were in fact being used without a license. As a result, the gallery has been taken off-line.
Here, there is a message by the site-owner about this which isn't telling the whole truth, and a load of shocked replies.

//blog.manicnirvana.com/?p=25

Please don't email her annonymously with hate mail!
I sent a comment which she may or may not approve... they don't automatically appear:

I am truly sad that you have had to take your photos down. When we exchanged emails, you stated that you had bought your photos and even named the agencies you had bought them from. It turns out that you had lied, as I had suspected. I really was hoping that you had most of your photos above board as you had claimed and that your excellent site could carry on going.
There is nothing wrong with using photos on a personal fan site as long as the photographers are credited. What you were doing was harvesting many photos from image agencies without their permission and this is just plain wrong. I quite happily admit I am a small fish in a big pond of gig photographers, I was standing up for the rights of my fellow professionals.
I'm quite happy for fan sites to use my photos for free AS LONG AS I'm credited. I was suspicious of the way your site had used photos by other photographers/agencies and this is why I let them know how their images were being used.
Your gallery has not been closed by me, it's been closed by the agencies you were ripping off that I alerted.
I find it sad that you are only telling a small part of the story that suits you here.
And yes I talked about it on a photo forum, to ask for advice on how to proceed. I am genuinely sorry if you received inappropriate emails as a result, and I did ask for people to stop when you pointed this out to me.
Let me make this very clear... I never said I had a vendetta against YOU. In fact, I said you were probably a very nice person. However, I said that I suspected you were misusing agency photos and I had a problem with that.
If you had paid for your photos from one particular agency as you maintained you had, your gallery would still be up. It's really not my fault you lied.
I do feel sad for all the fans that can't get to see the images that you used legally, I hope at some point that they can appear again. It's a mark of my good will that I was happy for you to use my photos as long as they were credited to me. The fact that you felt this was way too difficult shows why I had a problem with the way you were using all the photos by other photographers as well.
Anyway, I genuinely hope that you get back on your feet with this site as it was an excellent fan resource. Just please make sure the photographers are asked and credited, and that agencies' photos are used under proper licence.
I hope you publish this message in it's entirety.
Take care,
Bob

I do think it's really sad that she's had to put a message up saying it's all my fault, where in fact she's had cease and desist demands from the image agencies she's been ripping off.
Well, there you go.
It does leave me with a heavy heart though.
 01/24/2006 10:03:18 PM · #72
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
I do think it's really sad that she's had to put a message up saying it's all my fault, where in fact she's had cease and desist demands from the image agencies she's been ripping off.


I'm not surprised at all. Why would she stop lying now? Good for you sticking up for yourself! I got a good chuckle from the assertion that she could have gone to court and won. That just a sad commentary from a site ostensibly dedicated to appreciating an artist.

Message edited by author 2006-01-24 22:11:51.
 01/24/2006 10:06:47 PM · #73
Bob, that really sucks. Not only that she's been lying all this time, but that she's making you look like the bad guy! I hate it when people do that...
 01/24/2006 10:08:24 PM · #74
I can't help feeling this is a hornet's nest I should have left alone, but I do seem to pick up the role of crusader a lot of the time. This was always about the other photographers and agencies that were being ripped off... I didn't really care about 3 photos of mine.
 01/24/2006 10:12:13 PM · #75
Bob,

Guess what she was caught red handed with her hand in the "Image" cookie jar. Knowing full well what was going on, just was never called on it. They knew it was wrong and even went the extra step making it well known not to copy images, yet doing it themselves. They got caught and now are doing a controlled PR to place blame. Screw'um you took the high road and stood for whats right, you deserve a pat on the back!
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/13/2025 04:23:34 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/13/2025 04:23:34 PM EDT.