Image Copyright..

[jordanmcclements]

I was just reading the following thread with interest:-

http://www.webproworld.com/graphics-design-discussion-forum/56384-invoiced-getty-images-unlawful-use-images.html

And I agree that getty are out of order with their tactics.

However - I am looking this form the other side of the fence.

I have lost count of the number of times my images have been stolen.

95% of the time there is no malice (or profit) involved.

But sometimes, I just wish their was an easy way of asking for a fair payment without getting solicitors involved and without having to waste hours of my own time contacting people..

I guess I know their is no solution to this problem and just want to have a moan about it.. :-)

As an example here is one of my photos that has not only been stolen, but has had a visual watermark put on it so people know where it (allegedly) comes from!:-

http://www.layoutstar.com/image/bg/1/irish.jpg

(click in your browser address bar and press return if you don't see the image)

Surely this goes way beyond what could be considered 'fair use'?

Since this site (myspacelayoutspy.com) has a page rank of 5, maybe it is worth talking to a lawyer?

[Doc]

Jordan-

Without knowing more about the situation, it's difficult to render an opinion. However, if the photo is one that you produced, and they have placed their watermark on it, claiming it as their own, then I would at least pursue the matter with a C&D letter. I think it's quite possible (even probable) that they will immediately remove the photo from their site, because I think we'd agree they know full well that they stole the image. In that event, you'll have at least saved the money you would have paid a solicitor, which could be much better spent on some of your country's excellent ale! ;)

If they refuse to remove it, or even respond, then you're faced with the decision of whether or not you want to throw money at it. As a matter of principle, I can certainly understand wanting to do so, but only you can judge the worthiness of the investment.

Good luck!

[jordanmcclements]

Yeah - at the end of the day it is only a myspace layout, and I cannot be bothered with the hassle of sending letters etc.

I might just send an email if I can be bothered.

Life is too short.... :-)

[kevinper]

I would hope that that you would send an email. I have little doubt that it will be taken down as they want to stay very legal. It will also help everyone. Every time we let this stuff go, we leave the door open for people to continue infringement.

It is also possible that they did not get it from your site but aquirred it elsewhere.

[jordanmcclements]

Yeah - I'll have to get round to doing something about it I guess.

NB I doubt very much it was innocent on their part as there are other photos on the same page that come up in the google image search results when you search for 'Ireland'. They probably have implemented some sort of 'scraper' or something...

[weegillis]

Seems they've swapped in one of their own boilerplate images at the link you provided. Can you please provide a url to your own picture?

[BaldyBob]

Hi Jordon,

For many years before I got into the website business, I was a commercial photographer.

This is a bit of a long winded answer to the general issue of copyright in the UK.

In 1988 a new copyright act came into law, if memory serves me right it was the Design & Patents Act 1988. UK law.

I see that you are in Northern Ireland, so I think that you will be covered.

Now here's the important bit. It's both a criminal and civil offence to use copyright material, a photo is automatically the copyright of the photographer (unless he works for something like a newspaper).

If somebody uses your photo, without your permission, or payment, they are in breach of your copyrights. It's up to you if you want to enforce your rights.

If you want to stop somebody using an image online, the best way would be to inform them, their hosting company and maybe even their ISP that they are all party to a breach of your copyrights.

Under the criminal aspect they would all have the potential to be guilty. If you think of it as a stolen product. Somebody has stolen your image, they then use it via a hosting company and ISP as part of the criminal act. Like a guy in a pub selling a stolen CD player to the barman, who then sells it to his friend. They are all part of the crime.

In the past I was owed money for some photos by a company that went bust. Months later a 'new' business was set up (the same business really). I asked them to pay for the photo, they told me to get lost as they were a limited company. I called trading standards in, they got the police involved, the directors of the business were all charged with breach of copyright.

Then they remembered my telephone number. The end result was I was paid, plus and extra £500 for unauthorised use. And as I kept in criminal (don't go via a lawyer - use the police or trading standards), it cost me nothing.

So the law is on your side, it's up to you if you want to enforce matters.

One other point (as this comes up) you do not need to have a copyright notice on your images - although this can help.

The only thing you may need to do, is provide proof that it is your photograph.


Regards,

Robert

[oneofmanytims]

Good advice from robert@internetdesignco.c . . .. If a web host gets a complaint of plagiarism or copyright infringement they will act quickly to defend themselves - even shut down the site.

In the U.S. its difficult to sue unless you can either prove significant damages to you or gain for them.

Also, they can alter your image and claim the derived product as original work. Unless there's big money involved there's no case.

[weegillis]

Under international copyright law going back to the 80s, at least, derivatives are still covered by the original copyright. Unless the image is registered under Creative Commons (or similar body) giving derivative permission with credit to the creator (rights holder), or the creator gives explicit permission, a derivative is a copyright infringement.

[oneofmanytims]

Under international copyright law going back to the 80s, at least, derivatives are still covered by the original copyright. Unless the image is registered under Creative Commons (or similar body) giving derivative permission with credit to the creator (rights holder), or the creator gives explicit permission, a derivative is a copyright infringement.

My understanding is that if someone loads my photograph or graphic into their image processor and makes a few changes, then turns it into a new jpg, or whatever, it becomes a new product. (I'm talking U.S. laws)

Can you link me to any documents to correct me ?

[cw1865]

'Few changes' does not sound like it would be enough but of course it depends what those 'few changes' are. The derivative work must possess sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the derivative work to satisfy the requirement of originality.

[cw1865]

But sometimes, I just wish their was an easy way of asking for a fair payment without getting solicitors involved and without having to waste hours of my own time contacting people..

I guess I know their is no solution to this problem and just want to have a moan about it.. :-)

Well, I can understand your frustration and guess what, there IS an easy way of asking for a 'fair payment' - ASK THEM. Now of course, undoubtedly many, after being asked will remove the picture, ignore you or otherwise not pay you. It also may depend on the actual price that you charge for the picture. For instance, if you tell somebody 'Hey, you're violating my copyright by having this picture on my website, send me $10 (pounds, euros, etc.) via paypal, believe it or not you might actually get those payments.


Yeah - at the end of the day it is only a myspace layout, and I cannot be bothered with the hassle of sending letters etc.

I might just send an email if I can be bothered.

Life is too short.... :-)

Ultimately the problem with intellectual property of the nature you're producing is that you simply cannot 'lock it down' like you would your house, your car, or other valuables. You can definitely create a 'form' e-mail, tweak it slightly and send it out when you have the opportunity.

And guess what? There is a certain flattery that goes with being ripped off in this regard. It is actually showing that there is at least some demand for your art. Create something on your site where you 'sell it' - license it, or otherwise permit people to use it for a fee. Dare I say, prints?

[oneofmanytims]

'Few changes' does not sound like it would be enough but of course it depends what those 'few changes' are. The derivative work must possess sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the derivative work to satisfy the requirement of originality.

Yeah . . . like warhol doing the campbell soup label thing. if he was trying to sell soup there'd be a law suit. It matters a lot what your intentions are.

Should probably be more up-to-speed on these laws, but I've never heard of anybody getting pummeled by the law unless they were really out to steal somebody's work intentionally. And for the simple little projects that I work on, there's no justification in retaining a law firm.

[Dustie]

Hi Jordan,

It's your obligation to follow up with at least an email and ask them to remove your image from the site (assuming this is, indeed, your image, that you are the photographer). If they are running any ads on their My Space page, then they are making money from the images there (since they are adding design to the site, encouraging visitors) so you'd be within your rights to ask for a monitary amount for the use of your image thus far.

If copyright owners just say "well, I can't be bothered to send an email, it's just a my space page" then it hurts all of those who have copyrighted material that they wish to protect. By the way, there are Myspace sites out there making BIG MONEY!

They stole your image, putting their name to it claiming it's their's, and you think you maybe can't be bothered to write to them? Then you might as well put a notice on your site saying "free photos" and let folks use your photos for free. Could bring you some new traffic. I have four sites that I give graphics and photos away for free, and they bring me some Google income, Internet Clipart.Com - Free Professional Graphics for YOUR personal or professional website. (http://www.internetclipart.com), "Welcome to Critter Clipart, Graphics and Photos to spruce up your websites, emails, web ads, videos, blogs and more!"> (http://www.critterclipart.com), Green Sweet Green, An Earth Friendly Green Guide to Free Green Clipart, Graphics and Websites! (http://www.greenclipart.com) and Yummy Food Clipart and Photos, Main Course, Beverages, Deserts, Vegetables, Fruits, Sweets, Time To Eat, food graphics that will make your mouth water! (http://www.yummyclipart.com)

If you don't want to give your photos away, write to this person and tell them they are infrinding on your copyright and to remove the image, for your own good and the good of us all.

Lovely picture, by the way.

[weegillis]

The derivative work must possess sufficient new expression, over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the derivative work to satisfy the requirement of originality.Thank you for elaborating.

[weegillis]

It's your obligation to follow up with at least an email...BCC it to any attorney from the phone book. Once they discover the blind carbon copy they'll think twice.

Seriously, though, and even though I haven't actually seen this picture, irish.jpg, if these folks are ripping your pictures wholesale, they deserve a wake up call.

[jordanmcclements]

thanks everyone for the replies...
Nb it does say 'free for personal use, but for business use please contact me' on my web site.
I'll get an email off to them soon..

[wige]

My understanding is that if someone loads my photograph or graphic into their image processor and makes a few changes, then turns it into a new jpg, or whatever, it becomes a new product. (I'm talking U.S. laws)

Can you link me to any documents to correct me ?

Right now, there is a case about this ongoing, where the AP is suing an artist over a painting (complete work, not created using software) that is based on an AP photo. Personally, I think this is the definition of a derivitive work and shows the AP as being as evil as RIAA, but that's just my opinion. You can get some more information about the case here: AP Claims Shepard Fairey's Obama Poster Infringes on Copyright (http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/content_display/photo-news/legal-news/e3i55545185203bc0b1a6ba100f99a17708)


BCC it to any attorney from the phone book. Once they discover the blind carbon copy they'll think twice.

Seriously, though, and even though I haven't actually seen this picture, irish.jpg, if these folks are ripping your pictures wholesale, they deserve a wake up call.

Just to point out, he probably means a CC - BCCs are invisible to the recipient.


thanks everyone for the replies...
Nb it does say 'free for personal use, but for business use please contact me' on my web site.
I'll get an email off to them soon..

If I recall correctly, there is a requirement of good-faith enforcement in order to maintain a copyright. Once you are aware of the infringement, you must take action to resolve the issue and protect your rights. Otherwise, if further infringement occurs, they can point to your lack of previous enforcement as grounds for the work to be considered abandoned.

[jordanmcclements]

And guess what? There is a certain flattery that goes with being ripped off in this regard. It is actually showing that there is at least some demand for your art. Create something on your site where you 'sell it' - license it, or otherwise permit people to use it for a fee. Dare I say, prints?

:-) I do sell prints, and hi-res electronic versions of my photos - but this doesn't amount to a hill of beans compared to my Adsense revenue from the site..

And I wouldn't go as far as to call it art. All I do is take loads of photos and then delete the bad ones ...

[jordanmcclements]

If I recall correctly, there is a requirement of good-faith enforcement in order to maintain a copyright. Once you are aware of the infringement, you must take action to resolve the issue and protect your rights. Otherwise, if further infringement occurs, they can point to your lack of previous enforcement as grounds for the work to be considered abandoned.

OK - I'll definitely get an email off to them soon! (And I'll save it for future use to)...

[Doc]

OK - I'll definitely get an email off to them soon! (And I'll save it for future use to)...

Please post back and let us know the outcome, Jordan. Others are bound to face similar situations in the future.

Best of luck!

[jordanmcclements]

OK here is the info submitted through their contact form along with cheeky request for payment via paypal as suggested by cw1865 (did I mention there were actually TWO photos?):-

Hi.

You are using 2 of my photos on this page - http://www.myspacelayoutspy.com/irish-myspace-layouts.htm :-

http://www.layoutstar.com/image/bg/1/irish.jpg
and
http://www.layoutstar.com/image/bg/5/irish.jpg

Both are copyright irishviews.com

Original photos are at
http://www.irishviews.com/sky.jpg
and
http://www.irishviews.com/irish-countryside4.jpg

Please pay me $50 for each photo to my paypal account (jordan@jmcwd.com) for use up to this point and then remove them from your site.

Thanks.

[cw1865]

That e-mail was a little on the 'confrontational' side (not that you're not within your rights to be that way), but remember sometimes you get more flies with honey with vinegar, instead of demanding $50 and a removal, perhaps you should indicate the amount of time that goes into producing your art:

Dear Sir/Madam:

My name is (insert desired name) and I am the owner of (applicable website).

I recently visited your website (name.com) and was interested to discover (point to the infringing photos). While I can understand that you might want to use these images, I would hope that you could understand that significant efforts - including endless hours and thousands of dollars, have gone into the creation of these images.

For me to continue to produce world class pictures, I absolutely must receive some form of remuneration (perhaps define a cost here). I hope you can understand that I simply cannot permit the continued violation of my copyright rights. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss a mutuall agreeable arrangement to permit the continued use of my images into the future.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

YOUR NAME

Assuming I was infringing somebody's copyright, after receiving the letter you sent, I would most likely be inclined to remove the image and hope you never contact me again. Just some thoughts.

[ronchalice]

My understanding is that if someone loads my photograph or graphic into their image processor and makes a few changes, then turns it into a new jpg, or whatever, it becomes a new product. (I'm talking U.S. laws)

Can you link me to any documents to correct me ?

ANY derivative work is subject to copyright restrictions unless if falls under fair use doctrine. I know that if I'm going to create a photoillustration based on a photo I did not shoot, I always legally license a stock image with a license that gives me manipulation rights. Following your logic, you could photocopy a picture from a magazine, draw a line across it and call it a new work.

This kind of stuff isn't that much different from the parasites to sample popular music then try to pass it off as a new creative work. They still have to legally license the samples, there is a ton of case law to prove it. You might be able to find some documentation on image manipulation via plagiarismtoday.com - Jonathon does a great job of research on all kinds of web plagiarism issues.

[jordanmcclements]

That e-mail was a little on the 'confrontational' side (not that you're not within your rights to be that way), but remember sometimes you get more flies with honey with vinegar, instead of demanding $50 and a removal, perhaps you should indicate the amount of time that goes into producing your art:

Dear Sir/Madam:

My name is (insert desired name) and I am the owner of (applicable website).

I recently visited your website (name.com) and was interested to discover (point to the infringing photos). While I can understand that you might want to use these images, I would hope that you could understand that significant efforts - including endless hours and thousands of dollars, have gone into the creation of these images.

For me to continue to produce world class pictures, I absolutely must receive some form of remuneration (perhaps define a cost here). I hope you can understand that I simply cannot permit the continued violation of my copyright rights. Please contact me at your earliest convenience to discuss a mutuall agreeable arrangement to permit the continued use of my images into the future.

VERY TRULY YOURS,

YOUR NAME

Assuming I was infringing somebody's copyright, after receiving the letter you sent, I would most likely be inclined to remove the image and hope you never contact me again. Just some thoughts.

Nicely written... Certainly better than my effort! I'll come back here and copy and paste the above next time!

[wige]

ANY derivative work is subject to copyright restrictions unless if falls under fair use doctrine. I know that if I'm going to create a photoillustration based on a photo I did not shoot, I always legally license a stock image with a license that gives me manipulation rights. Following your logic, you could photocopy a picture from a magazine, draw a line across it and call it a new work.

This kind of stuff isn't that much different from the parasites to sample popular music then try to pass it off as a new creative work. They still have to legally license the samples, there is a ton of case law to prove it. You might be able to find some documentation on image manipulation via plagiarismtoday.com - Jonathon does a great job of research on all kinds of web plagiarism issues.

Does this apply to creating a painting from scratch, using someone else's photograph as the inspiration? This is the point that gets me interested in the AP Obama picture case. Unlike a photoillustration or a song using samples, which use the actual data from the previous artist (the original image file, CD audio track, or songsheet), the only thing the painting uses is the look and pose of the subject. I think the argument will end up coming down to what a photographer actually has rights to - does the photographer own the likeness of the subject at the moment the image was taken; the subjects fashion tastes; the subjects pose? Or does the photogropher just own the composition of the subject within the frame?

Sorry, I know it is a bit off topic. Back to the previously posted thread, already in progress...

[Doc]

Does this apply to creating a painting from scratch, using someone else's photograph as the inspiration? This is the point that gets me interested in the AP Obama picture case. Unlike a photoillustration or a song using samples, which use the actual data from the previous artist (the original image file, CD audio track, or songsheet), the only thing the painting uses is the look and pose of the subject. I think the argument will end up coming down to what a photographer actually has rights to - does the photographer own the likeness of the subject at the moment the image was taken; the subjects fashion tastes; the subjects pose? Or does the photogropher just own the composition of the subject within the frame?

Sorry, I know it is a bit off topic. Back to the previously posted thread, already in progress...


My opinion certainly won't carry a lot of weight with the court, but it seems patently ridiculous to me, to entertain a lawsuit such as the case mentioned involving the artist and an AP photo.

In my opinion, the photographer owns the photograph and the rights thereto, NEITHER the subject, NOR the moment in time that it was taken.

In my experience, patent and copyright suits typically focus upon three major aspects:

1. Is the essence of the original work substantially changed by the new use? In other words, was there sufficient modification that the nature of the original work has taken on an entirely new focus, or is essentially still the same widget, just in a different color?(qualitative)

2. Was their financial gain or loss sustained because of the infringement? (quantitative)

3. Was there INTENT? (quantitative)

The one aspect that seems to get varying amounts of attention in the decision, is whether or not the original artist had any reasonable expectation of protection of his work. I think this is the key factor in the cited case. (qualitative)

[oneofmanytims]

ANY derivative work is subject to copyright restrictions unless if falls under fair use doctrine. I know that if I'm going to create a photoillustration based on a photo I did not shoot, I always legally license a stock image with a license that gives me manipulation rights. Following your logic, you could photocopy a picture from a magazine, draw a line across it and call it a new work.

This kind of stuff isn't that much different from the parasites to sample popular music then try to pass it off as a new creative work. They still have to legally license the samples, there is a ton of case law to prove it. You might be able to find some documentation on image manipulation via plagiarismtoday.com - Jonathon does a great job of research on all kinds of web plagiarism issues.

After I die i wanna come back as Jonathon and everybody will want to claim my work as their own. In this life it goes like this - I get a project, like creating a field of daisies for part of a header. So, I go to altavista.com and find a picture of a daisy, clone it a bunch of times, then I flip em, tilt em, tint em and paste all the resultant daisies onto a green background and call it my work.

I never considered this unethical but now I'm not so sure. What do you think ?

[wige]

Well, if the image is owned by the AP or Getty, you're in trouble. Other than that...

I think it is something that is commonly done, but I think it would likely be considered infringement - you are taking a file that someone else's talents, time and resources went into creating, and using that as the basis for your work without compensation or credit. How would you feel is after putting all several hours into creating that header, someone else came along, changed the color profile and posted it as their own work? How will your client feel, after paying you so much to create the original banner to see it reused by another site?

[oneofmanytims]

I'm not so afraid of AP or Getty (or anybody else). Your point is well taken, though. Everybody who publishes should have a well defined use policy. I don't have one but I'm working on it.

[jordanmcclements]

Still no reply from the site owners, and the photos are still available on that page....

[weegillis]

It should come as no surprise, but I'm a little confused. Is the link to myspace layouts on your site placed there to help us? Or have you previously submitted content to myspace layouts to which their fine print may well have given them free access and re-use permissions?

[jordanmcclements]

weegillis,

The link to 'irish myspace layouts' on my site - is just another mini site of mine - I have never given any 3rd party myspace site rights to anything of mine...

[jordanmcclements]

Those links mentioned appear to be no longer working. I never got any acknowledgement from anyone though...

It's a long time since I have checked, but on looking today - it seems that the problem is worse than ever, with images from my web site that have been stolen by other sites almost always appearing above my own web site in the Google image search results.

One wallpaper site that has scraped hundreds of my images has no contact details, and a whois says that they are registered in the Cayman islands!

I think this is a big fail on Google's part - most of these images are *exactly* the same (same dimensions, same file size) but just uploaded to someone else's server.. Surely Google should take into account where the image *originally* appeared when returning image search results??

Anyway, leaving that aside, are there any (non-scumbag) lawyers reading this who would like to help me get fair compensation from people whose only motive is to make money off other people's hard work?

[hawkwind dave]

If the issue is continuing and escalating... you need to put a water mark of some sort on your images.

I don't think Google can be held responsible... as a search engine it has no idea what an image looks like and I'm sure there's millions of different images out there with the same name, dimensions and file size (favicon.ico for example).

I'm currently trying to get credited for a photo my local council has nicked from me... I think trading standards will be my next route as emails are getting ignored. But trading standards is only any good if 'they' are in the UK i guess.

[jordanmcclements]

Hi Dave,

I personally don't like watermarks in images, though it is worth considering.

I hear what you are saying, but I still think Google could do more to verify if the exact same image already existed in their index before showing the stolen image at the top of the search results... :-(

Good luck with Trading Standards!

[jordanmcclements]

It looks like Google now at least have the option to fill out an online form to inform them of image search copyright issues:-

http://www.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=lr_dmca&product=imagesearch

Though it is a bit disconcerting that they point out that simply by doing so - you leave yourself open to court costs and lawyer fees ! :-(

[MrGamm]

I sort of agree, this company is less than reasonable, and I am beginning to wonder if it is more like an extortion scheme rather than a proper use of justice.