The Chief

Failing that call them and say hell will freeze over before you get a god-damn dime out of me you yanky piece of sh*t!!


That should do it

Mick

iTrader: (1)

all this 'using MY images' and I'll see you in court stuff strikes me as people trying it on to make a fast buck - If you stick something in a public access place and don't protect it I don't see how you can be surprised if people copy it.

There are ways of protecting images from being downloaded and copied... If your image is that precious then do something to protect it. It's not theft in my book. If the image has download or copy prevention or even a note to say it is copyright then fair enough. If you circumvent or ignore that then you're starting to get things wrong. If the owner contacts you and asks you to remove the image then again fair enough... but to sneak up after 2 years and suddenly try to slap you with a large fine/bill whatever it's ludicrous I think they are trying it on!

Makes me think of the scams in London a good few years back when unscupulous freehold owners would not chase up ground rents for a few years and then suddenly slap the whole lot down and cause people to be unable to pay, they then reclaimed the property - disgusting behaviour

Does make you a bit wary of website pics though... Thanks for posting the info.

Mick

Hoppy

But it's got nothing to do with what's in your book. It's the law that matters. And breach of copyright is theft.

The internet/digital just makes the theft easier, but just because everybody is doing it doesn't make it either right or legal. It's wrong, and illegal. Whenever you copy anything without permission, unless you created the original 100% yourself, technically you are in breach of copyright. Always. No question about it.

But does it matter, and what can the copyright holder/s do about it? Every case is different, but in this instance it seems to me like there has been an innocent mistake, but no harm has been done. So take down the image and leave it at that.

However, if I thought that the true copyright holders had indeed been done out of $3,600 then my advice would have been very different. That would be a very serious breach, not just a technical breach, and that would merit compensation.

And BTW, I've just breached your copyright by lifting the quote above

Cheers,

Richard.

GarethE

iTrader: (1)

As a pro photographer, I make my living from taking and selling pictures - if you use one of my images without my permission and without paying for it, then you have cost me revenue, ie. not paid for something you have used, its no different from walking out of a restaurant without paying, taking advise from a consultant without paying or not paying the painter and decorator after the house is done.

If you stole a photograph or painting off the wall of my home you would still be commiting theft regardless of whether I left the front door open or not !!!

PS Richard beat me to it about your quote

The Chief

But the painting would no longer be there, where as an image on a website would. am i still in breach if i took a picture of your painting in your living room - is that theft?

Hoppy

Technically, yes.

And if you then go and sell copies of your photograph of the painting, then you are going to get chased for every penny. And you'll probably get hit with ALL legal costs.

Copyright can be a many-headed monster, but the simple rule is if you didn't create it, you don't own it, and if you copy it you are automatically in breach of copyright. After that it can get very complicated.

Here's how daft it can get: Two journalist are interviewing Tony Blair about him standing down. He gives and explanation off the top of his head, and one journo writes it down, and another tapes it. Who owns the copyright?

Actually, both journalists own copyright of their respective copies of what Tony Blair said, and Tony Blair owns nothing Copyright only applies to recorded work, which both jounrnalists have and TB doesn't. However, if he had read out a previously written speach, TB would own it (assuming he wrote it of course, which he probably didn't, or that the author/s had handed over their copyright, which they probably did as part of their employment contract...) And so it goes on

Richard.

GarethE

iTrader: (1)

Copyright exsists to protect the rights of the author of the work, whether it be a painting, poem, photograph, book, music score, sculpture etc,etc

Broadly speaking Copyright exsists to ensure that the original author is credited with having produced the work, that the work is not copied and passed off as original by a third party who could claim it as theirs, obviously to protect the financial worth of the item to the person who created it, and to prevent the work being used/published in a manner which was not intended by the original author.

It matters not how, why or where a piece of work/photograph is copied - if its copied without permission, you break copyright - end of.

The comment about the painting on the wall was more about the failure to secure an item rather than removing it - its still theft, regardless of whether I have taken sensible precautions to prevent it being removed.

Luminous

iTrader: (3)

Just another thing to add, assuming I have not missed someone else saying this.

They claim to have made the image. They claim the first version of the image existed with them before it ever made your site. Presumably they will produce some sort of "evidence" (if this ever does go further) to show when this image was first made.

Who is to say that his evidence cannot have been easily faked?
Who is to say that you do not have such evidence, and have a copy of this image on a floppy disk from when you mate drew it back when you are at school in 1982?

You get my point. They will be damn hard pressed to claim ownership of the image, and its original date. Nearly anything can be copied, and who is to say that they have not copied the image from someone else.

This who thing could just be a scam. It would not be hard for me to go to ppl's website and then suddenly start spamming out copyright infringement notices on images that I had never even seen before I went to said victim's site. Sure, it could take a little while to setup an elaborate offical looking front to make ppl bite and the scam work, but stuff like this has happened before.

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

Stuff like this happens all the time just as Luminous explains.

We get companies phoning up asking for payment for an advert we took out in some noname magazine, they send proof of advert which is a lifted copy of an actual advert we had taken out in another publication, then say they have taped conversations proving confirmation of order etc. We get threatening letters etc that all go in the bin. The phone conversations get quite heated if our sales guy can be arsed to play with them.

Its quite an elaborate scam that would easily slip through to accounts of larger companies.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

And rightly so, but what if you don't sell it?

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Actually, no. It's breach of copyright (I'm not just nit picking, there's an important difference (probably ))

Well, I believe that if everyone is doing it, it should not be illegal. If we live in a democracy and everyone is doing <something>, then the notion of <something> being illegal is silly, as laws are passed by the majority (or by proxy majority as is the case in e.g. the UK)


Most likely you didn't. It would fall under fair use, I'm pretty sure.

Kevin Groat

Tell them it's your recently departed aunt and uncle from the US (tragic BBQ accident) in the picture and ask if they had permission to take the piccie in the first place

Wish

iTrader: (2)

Unless its a recorded delivery letter or a letter from a solicitor, I wouldnt worry about it at all.

But I wouldnt make contact with them, this will only make them see they are getting a reaction and may carry on trying to get your wallet open

Hoppy

First para, guilty M'lud

Second para, we all breach copyright (eg photocopying) just like we all break speed limits occasionally. Still illegal.

Third para, in the context of this thread, granted

Final point, the only common area where the author will not automatically own copyright of their work is when it is done as part of their permanent employment. The employer owns copyright.

Richard.

pslewis

It's already been invented - and anyone can make one, just not safely and reliably .... then comes the real test - the delivery to the target!

On the original question ..... wait until they get a writ to you - they are trying it on!! Remove the image though - it will help your defence (and do it ASAP!)

Pete

Jerome

Sounds like they are adding punitive charges to the actual worth of the picture. You can buy unlimited licenses for pics like that for peanuts. Try and find out how much that picture (or one very similar) would cost to get a license for. That should be the maximum you are liable for, if at all.

Where I'm working we routinely pay £200-400 for unlimited use of that kind of picture. Having said that we once paid £10k for a single picture (photographer was someone famous - still an ordinary piccie though).

rikdangerous

*skulks off slowly to remove some images*

DemonDave

iTrader: (13)

some info

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...hp/t11102.html

and search for superstock

and this is why they have started - a product called picscout

http://www.a21group.com/news/121004....kBwQh17RbK9hcg==

http://www.picscout.com/solutions/agencies.html

Hoppy

That PicScout thing must be damn clever. But I'm not sure how much help it will actually be.

The main problem with internet copyright theft is often not discovering the theft, but getting any money for it, or even just getting the image taken down. Legitimate companies understand copyright and honour their obligations so by definition, those that don't tend to be cowboys. They are almost impossible to control as they don't give a damn, are probably based on the other side of the world, and have no money anyway On the flip side, outfits like this are generally unlikely to be losing the copyright holders any significant revenue.

But that doesn't stop photographers and picture agencies getting very upset and frustrated at being ripped off

Richard.

PS I had trouble with one website using a lot of our copyrighted images. They ignored several warning shots, but then I got the guy's UK home address and sent a recorded delivery letter. I didn't actually say 'brick through window' but it had the same effect

gso

Schneider said that Zefa is finding about 60 percent of infringers pay quickly and about 20 percent try to negotiate. The remaining 20 percent receive a legal letter. She said a few have continued to resist and the German agency is starting legal proceedings against these.

"A lot of people seem to have the attitude that this is the internet so everything ought to be free, " said Ariav, who estimates that SuperStock alone is losing several hundred thousand dollars a year to infringement. "The internet does make it easier to do something that is immoral.

Hoppy

That is simply untrue. They have probably 'lost' nothing. All they have not received is potential revenue. 'Not receiving' is not the same as 'losing'.

Of course, if these rip-off websites had to pay for the use of certain copyrighted images, they would simply not use them and would just go and nick something else.

Having said that, this PicScout thing is a good idea. I just don't hold out much hope for it. Just like the music and movie markets have been helpless in preventing piracy.

Richard.