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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> DPC Photos being stolen. IS YOURS?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 47, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/23/2006 07:04:03 PM · #1
I came across this issue last night while looking for a Flash Web Template for my photography. After browsing and browsing the templates, several of the images were looking vaguely familiar to me. Then I came upon one I recognized immediately for Kiwiness' and another I knew for certain as John Setzler's.

I contacted both of them last night to bring it to their attention, in the event that it was done without permission. Unfortunately, that appears to be the case. Each of them has contacted the site separately to resolve their own copyright issues.

But as I it is impossible for me to recognize everyone's work, I thought I should post this here so you could look for your own or other DPC recognizable work.

Here's the link:
//www.flashvista.com/flash_templates_photography/

Unfortunately, there's no easy way, you just have to look through the samples of the Flash Templates and click through the images. But hopefully, others will recognoze some shots and we can help each other protect our copyrights.

Cheers,
Dawn
05/23/2006 07:07:10 PM · #2
Clicking on the links just seems to reload the list of template types?
05/23/2006 07:08:15 PM · #3
Scroll down, the templates are just below that list.
They are in the photography templates, but the page goes to that automatically. Just an example of poor web design. ;)
05/23/2006 07:09:08 PM · #4
nm...just wasn't working in Firefox apparently.
05/23/2006 07:10:00 PM · #5
The template I definitely recognized images from was the last one on p3.
05/23/2006 07:15:27 PM · #6
It looks like they're not SELLING the images, just using the photos to show their galleries.

Could it be possible they downloaded them from Setzler's istock portfolio:

//www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=331175


05/23/2006 07:18:37 PM · #7
Yep, that was definitely kiwiness' "Zero Spot Editing" picture. Shame on them...
05/23/2006 07:20:59 PM · #8
Stealing images is not cool, but those flash templates are. I hope they do right by the photographers, especially the DPCers
05/23/2006 07:23:22 PM · #9
Originally posted by deapee:

It looks like they're not SELLING the images, just using the photos to show their galleries.

Could it be possible they downloaded them from Setzler's istock portfolio:

//www.istockphoto.com/user_view.php?id=331175


It is a breach of copyright to use images without the artists permission, whether you are selling the images or not. They are profiting by the use of the images, and the photographers should be compensated for that. That said, I bought a template from them before I became aware of this situation, and they did infact include all the images in the files they sent me.

I too had thought of stock photo sites. The image of John's that I recognize is not in the portfolio you linked to, but it's possible that it was purchased through another stock site. I don't know. John and Gary seemed unaware that they were using the photos.

edit/spelling.

Message edited by author 2006-05-23 19:24:10.
05/23/2006 07:29:10 PM · #10
Originally posted by just-married:


It is a breach of copyright to use images without the artists permission, whether you are selling the images or not. They are profiting by the use of the images, and the photographers should be compensated for that. That said, I bought a template from them before I became aware of this situation, and they did infact include all the images in the files they sent me.

I too had thought of stock photo sites. The image of John's that I recognize is not in the portfolio you linked to, but it's possible that it was purchased through another stock site. I don't know. John and Gary seemed unaware that they were using the photos.

edit/spelling.


That's not quite accurate. First of all, once you purchase the file, you don't need the artist's permission to use the photo in any way that is provided for by the terms of use. Secondly, you're simply not allowed to resell the image. You can use the image in other things you're selling (otherwise stock agencies wouldn't exist for marking/advertising companies).

For instance, from Istock's Terms of Use:
Originally posted by istock:


(c) Permitted Uses. Subject to the restrictions described under Prohibited Uses below, the following are “Permitted Uses” of Content:

1. advertising and promotional projects, including printed materials, product packaging, presentations, film and video presentations, commercials, catalogues, brochures, promotional greeting cards and promotional postcards (ie. not for resale or license);
2. entertainment applications, such as books and book covers, magazines, newspapers, editorials, newsletters, and video, broadcast and theatrical presentations;
3. on–line or electronic publications, including web pages to a maximum of 800 x 600 pixels;
4. prints, posters (i.e. a hardcopy) and other reproductions for personal use or promotional purposes specified in (1) above, but not for resale, license or other distribution; and
5. any other uses approved in writing by iStockphoto.

If there is any doubt that a proposed use is a Permitted Use, you should contact iStockphoto’s Client Relations for guidance.
05/23/2006 07:31:01 PM · #11
I'm pretty sure all of the microstock sites prohibit the re-selling of the images, or including them in templates, without special conditions. You can't just download an ordinary RF image and use it that way. If you can determine which stock site it may have been downloaded from, you can report it to them -- the stock sites have lawyers to go after people who use their photographers' images illegally.
05/23/2006 07:58:04 PM · #12
That's not quite accurate. First of all, once you purchase the file, you don't need the artist's permission to use the photo in any way that is provided for by the terms of use. Secondly, you're simply not allowed to resell the image. You can use the image in other things you're selling (otherwise stock agencies wouldn't exist for marking/advertising companies). [/quote]

I'm not being clear in my communication. Rereading now, I can see that the first sentence of deapee's post was probably a lead-in to the second. I was responding to the first sentence on its own. Sorry for the poor communication.

So, ...stock photography is a possibility. I think we need to hear from John and Gary as to whether that might be possible in their cases.


05/23/2006 09:12:22 PM · #13
As I stated when you sent me a PM, I thank you for the heads up and I have contacted the proper people. The site you linked me to is not responsible for anything... This doesn't really need to be a public issue.
05/23/2006 09:27:45 PM · #14
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The site you linked me to is not responsible for anything... This doesn't really need to be a public issue.


My bad. I thought it was only fair to alert others that their photos might also be there, and a thread seemed the best way to do that. I hope you don't feel I've put word in your mouth.
05/23/2006 09:38:50 PM · #15
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

As I stated when you sent me a PM, I thank you for the heads up and I have contacted the proper people. The site you linked me to is not responsible for anything... This doesn't really need to be a public issue.


I disagree. It should be a public issue if she thinks someone is stealing people's images. Especially since you said you didn't give anyone authority to use your images in those pages to her.

In reality, what I think happend is that one of your photos that got downloaded a bunch of times at istock or shutterstock is being used and there's absolutely no way to know if this guy is or isn't ripping off people's photos.

--

The problem with putting your photos out there at the microstock sites is that they just get downloaded so many times by so many different, unknown people that once you do it, you literally have no course of action to take when something of yours pops up. Someone had better be pretty darn sure their photos were stolen before they make the assumption and started contacting people's hosting companies about image theft and copyright issues.

Either way, selling images as royalty free is a kind of tricky situation -- once they're sold a few times, you just can't make assumptions.

--

Anyway, and that being said, I think Dawn made a discovery, contacted some people privately, made the assumption based on the information she had available to her that this person was, in fact, stealing people's photos from DPC -- and from her assumption, she did the right thing in letting a very large community of photographers in on what she believed is/was going on.

Thanks Dawn.
05/24/2006 04:25:38 AM · #16
I don't put my photos up for stock companies and they never asked me if they could use my photo, so as far as I am concerned they have stolen my photo for their own use.
05/24/2006 04:59:56 AM · #17
Originally posted by deapee:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

As I stated when you sent me a PM, I thank you for the heads up and I have contacted the proper people. The site you linked me to is not responsible for anything... This doesn't really need to be a public issue.


I disagree. It should be a public issue if she thinks someone is stealing people's images. Especially since you said you didn't give anyone authority to use your images in those pages to her.

In reality, what I think happend is that one of your photos that got downloaded a bunch of times at istock or shutterstock is being used and there's absolutely no way to know if this guy is or isn't ripping off people's photos.

--

The problem with putting your photos out there at the microstock sites is that they just get downloaded so many times by so many different, unknown people that once you do it, you literally have no course of action to take when something of yours pops up. Someone had better be pretty darn sure their photos were stolen before they make the assumption and started contacting people's hosting companies about image theft and copyright issues.

Either way, selling images as royalty free is a kind of tricky situation -- once they're sold a few times, you just can't make assumptions.

--

Anyway, and that being said, I think Dawn made a discovery, contacted some people privately, made the assumption based on the information she had available to her that this person was, in fact, stealing people's photos from DPC -- and from her assumption, she did the right thing in letting a very large community of photographers in on what she believed is/was going on.

Thanks Dawn.


Things must be bad because I'm going to agree with David 100% the right thing was done by Dawn.

Thank you Dawn for letting everyone know.
05/24/2006 09:22:59 AM · #18
To jmsetzler and kiwiness - please let us know the results of your contacts with the template site regarding the apparently stolen photographs. We'll respect your desires if you want to keep it a private matter but sharing your experiences could be beneficial to the community.
05/24/2006 09:27:38 AM · #19
keegbow,

your post was hilarious and spot on.
05/24/2006 09:40:52 AM · #20
Nobody ever steals my stuff :(
05/24/2006 09:51:40 AM · #21
maybe you can get a dpc member discount for everyone, since they did steal your photos, they need to make it up to you in some way.

lol
05/24/2006 11:11:28 AM · #22
Originally posted by vxpra:

Nobody ever steals my stuff :(


I'm with you - Not likely to be a big issue personally :-)

Seriously, I agree with DP. There is some ability to track digital watermarks but it's expensive and from what I understand not 100% either.
05/24/2006 12:09:41 PM · #23
again, i have said this a few time already,

why cant D&L disable right click,

i know that in firefox there is a way to steal them, but not everyone knows how,
05/24/2006 12:16:31 PM · #24
Originally posted by TroyMosley:

why cant D&L disable right click,


Why does this keep coming up as a "solution"? In any browser you like it's easy to grab images - if you hit the print screen button you can get it from almost anything in windows.

My right click menu has maybe 50 options on it that I use a lot - nothing to do with saving pictures. No site is important enough to block that (or try).

Message edited by author 2006-05-24 12:17:05.
05/24/2006 12:19:09 PM · #25
Firefox has nothing to do with circumventing right click disablement. Anyone can do it in any browser and I'm certain that anyone who is creating website templates to sell can do it. It prevents nothing and only serves to annoy the honest users.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 02/19/2019 03:43:36 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 02/19/2019 03:43:36 PM EST.