PDA

View Full Version : Thrilled or Angered


kidslateinlife
3rd July 2012, 08:28 AM
Via a link, I was directed to an (application ? ) which finds your photo's on other peoples websites, taken without consent /downloaded . I know a lot of you will know what this is called technically.

Curious, I opened my flickr page and used the (app) and found two of my images on two different websites, blogs, etc.

So my gut reaction is "Hooray", my stuff is worth nicking, Or should I be getting the invoice sorted?

If anyone else is curious, I will post the details of the link. I think with the quality of some of the work on here (not mine) that the link could be useful.

StephenL
3rd July 2012, 09:16 AM
I think I'd be a bit peeved, and perhaps just a bit flattered. I know some web sites have asked my permission to use my photos, but I don't know if any other have used the stuff.

Patchwork
3rd July 2012, 10:40 AM
Thanks for posting this. I suppose it depends on how your images are being used and whether or not you get any credit. I'd certainly be interested to know if any of my images had been 'acquired' and would appreciate details of the link. Thanks for posting this

kidslateinlife
3rd July 2012, 10:48 AM
Thanks for posting this. I suppose it depends on how your images are being used and whether or not you get any credit. I'd certainly be interested to know if any of my images had been 'acquired' and would appreciate details of the link. Thanks for posting this

I am certainly no expert with these kind of link's, but I understand this only works on some browsers?, I can make it work at home but not at work.

What I get is on say my flickr page with say 12 images on, click the tab (which you have just dragged) and your images then get a question mark on them, then click and individual image and a new page opens up with details of that image.


http://jarred.github.com/src-img/


I think you have to do one at a time, but let me know how you get on.

Patchwork
3rd July 2012, 11:54 AM
Just given it a go, and yes its works. Many thanks - it could prove interesting.

Paul

Chevvyf1
3rd July 2012, 12:19 PM
Thanks for this ! I have been told of some but now I can look at all my shots :) may take a while ...

timg
3rd July 2012, 01:38 PM
I'm not holding out too much hope for this technique... this photo:

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/thumbs/P2029630.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=42682)

was matched with various scantily clad ladies, a hawk and a dead raccoon! :D

Zuiko
3rd July 2012, 01:48 PM
I'm not holding out too much hope for this technique... this photo:

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/thumbs/P2029630.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=42682)

was matched with various scantily clad ladies, a hawk and a dead raccoon! :D

Don't tell me, the raccoon was so transfixed by the scantily clad ladies that he didn't spot the hawk.......:D

Cathrine Stephansen
3rd July 2012, 04:45 PM
I didn't quite get how to use it. On the page following the link it says drag it to the bookmarks. It didn't work on IE9. Are bookmarks the same as favourites?

Cathrine Stephansen
3rd July 2012, 05:15 PM
I finally found out where the favourites bar had hid, but when I check photos I get a message saying they can't be smaller than 9x9 pixels... Heck, I can't even see that small myself :D

What's wrong?

Greytop
3rd July 2012, 06:10 PM
Thanks, it works well with Firefox 13.01 *chr

kidslateinlife
3rd July 2012, 06:22 PM
I'm not holding out too much hope for this technique... this photo:

http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/data/500/thumbs/P2029630.jpg (http://e-group.uk.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=42682)

was matched with various scantily clad ladies, a hawk and a dead raccoon! :D

something to do with it being from tenerife! but I do agree that it pulls up some odd similar images.

kidslateinlife
3rd July 2012, 06:47 PM
I didn't quite get how to use it. On the page following the link it says drag it to the bookmarks. It didn't work on IE9. Are bookmarks the same as favourites?

Cathrine,

Sorry but I struggled the same, it needs someone more p.c literate than myself to explain it's complexities.

I think the bookmarks are seperate to the favourites.

Janet
3rd July 2012, 07:06 PM
I think it only works with Firefox?

I found this image used on three different websites, only one of which had actually bothered to ask permission...

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2655/3788515892_574c4585e1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/janetstansfield/3788515892/)

Janet

Nick Temple-Fry
4th July 2012, 12:08 AM
I think it only works with Firefox?

Janet

There is an issue with IE.9 and security that means at the default settings Image Search may not allow you to drag and drop images. It can also affect functionality on other websites.

I did research it and there is a work around, but can't now remember the solution.

Nick

Chevvyf1
4th July 2012, 08:06 AM
There is an issue with IE.9 and security that means at the default settings Image Search may not allow you to drag and drop images. It can also affect functionality on other websites.

I did research it and there is a work around, but can't now remember the solution.

Nick

Nick I read this report of yours with great interest! I have been unable to access Flickr slideshows and Utube in Firefox for months now ... BUT I can in ie9 :( I wonder if it is the same problem ?

SteelD
8th July 2012, 11:19 AM
Great little utility. I had fun with that. Found one of my images on 5 other web sites! This image of mine on http://www.davidsteel.org.uk/route66/?p=395 (http://www.davidsteel.org.uk/route66/?p=395)

http://www.davidsteel.org.uk/route66/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/EndOfTheTrail.jpg

appears to have ended up at:

http://journeyalongroute66.tumblr.com/post/26355594412/santa-monica-los-angeles-route-66-end
http://www.bon-voyage.co.uk/destinations/the_california_coast_holidays/activity/end_of_route_66_santa_monica_california
http://www.globaldrift.com.au/trips/USA-R66
http://www.chartertravel.co.uk/route-66-holidays
http://www.ruta66.tk/

Nobody has asked permission to use it. There could be other images of mine being used but I don't have time to check every image.

A couple of these are commercial travel sites - naughty naughty - do I send them an invoice?

A couple appear to be blog sites - if a blog is a personal web log then it must surely cast doubt on the credibility/authenticity of the rest of their site if they use material from other unaccredited sources. :(

richardlongley
8th July 2012, 12:56 PM
Interesting.

My previous main hobby was breeding very rare tropical fish, and photographing them was a small part of the hobby


I found photos of my fish, I had taken,,,,,,,, being used to advertise someone elses fish!!

Cathrine Stephansen
8th July 2012, 01:13 PM
It's amazing how people think they can just take pictures that have been published on the web...

richardlongley
8th July 2012, 01:16 PM
Great little utility. I had fun with that. Found one of my images on 5 other web sites! This image of mine on http://www.davidsteel.org.uk/route66/?p=395 (http://www.davidsteel.org.uk/route66/?p=395)

http://www.davidsteel.org.uk/route66/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/EndOfTheTrail.jpg

appears to have ended up at:

http://journeyalongroute66.tumblr.com/post/26355594412/santa-monica-los-angeles-route-66-end
http://www.bon-voyage.co.uk/destinations/the_california_coast_holidays/activity/end_of_route_66_santa_monica_california
http://www.globaldrift.com.au/trips/USA-R66
http://www.chartertravel.co.uk/route-66-holidays
http://www.ruta66.tk/

Nobody has asked permission to use it. There could be other images of mine being used but I don't have time to check every image.

A couple of these are commercial travel sites - naughty naughty - do I send them an invoice?

A couple appear to be blog sites - if a blog is a personal web log then it must surely cast doubt on the credibility/authenticity of the rest of their site if they use material from other unaccredited sources. :(



Yes - send them an invoice. They have to pay it!!

I know a company that used a photograph for advertisement, and they received an invoice, then were advised by their lawyers to pay.

Don't be shy with the costs either - if its good enough for them to use its good enough for them to pay for it!

David M
8th July 2012, 01:17 PM
Bill any unauthorised usage at double (or triple) your usual rates, explaining the rate increase. If they don't pay up report the copyright violation to their service provider and tell them you're holding them responsible as their customer hasn't responded.

richardlongley
8th July 2012, 01:19 PM
But also I would state that the charge is for the prior use, and upon payment you will give them permission to use that picture for that requirement (with the usual acknowledgements of course ) :)

Chevvyf1
8th July 2012, 02:32 PM
But also I would state that the charge is for the prior use, and upon payment you will give them permission to use that picture for that requirement (with the usual acknowledgements of course ) :)


Yes totally agree on triple the fee as they had not sought your permission before unauthorised use ! :eek: ... then pop open the Champers for your credits they have put up !

LMGruchy
8th July 2012, 07:35 PM
Sorry, I have come to this late. I don't understand the technology but as a matter of priniciple I want people in generaln to have an appreciation of intellectual property so on principle I would always object to use of my images without permission.

SteelD
8th July 2012, 07:42 PM
Sorry, I have come to this late. I don't understand the technology but as a matter of priniciple I want people in generaln to have an appreciation of intellectual property so on principle I would always object to use of my images without permission.
I quite agree but I equally accept the risk of posting images on the web. That's why I watermark images when they go above a certain size on my web site.

sponner
8th July 2012, 09:43 PM
Thanks for that, makes using the google image search very easy.

I have found loads of my stock images being used, often without permission (I can only tell as the watermarks are still present). It's a little annoying but I don't usually do anything about it, unless it is a commercial site, I then contact the agency whose watermark is present.

The only time I contacted the user directly (it was a book cover) It turned out they had correctly licensed my image.


I am toying with contacting this guy directly, you can just make out the dreamstime watermark on the picture of the hand holding the gold coin. it is one of mine.

http://standevaughn.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/how-to-get-found-online-by-the-people-you-want-to-find-you/

sponner
8th July 2012, 10:10 PM
Done, see what happens :)

sponner
12th July 2012, 05:32 AM
Heard nothing yet :(

I have found another of my images being used on a UK national daily newspaper site though, maybe have more luck there!

richardlongley
12th July 2012, 07:33 AM
It will take time.

No company is going to pay immediately, the cogs of business turn slowly,,,,,,,, especially when the cogs of business are paying money out,,,,,,,:D

LMGruchy
12th July 2012, 11:10 AM
Heard nothing yet :(

I have found another of my images being used on a UK national daily newspaper site though, maybe have more luck there!

A few months ago I was chatting to a newspaper photographer of a local rag and about the increasing use of grabbing an appropriate image oiff the internet and he said that they try to seek permission of the photo owner before using it, but if they can't they use it anyway and hope for the best. If the owner complains and sends in a bill, they pay it. He saisd to put my name on every photo on the internet for that reason. (Have I? No.)

Might be worth sending in a bill, and bear in mind that a national daily often pay a lot for a particular image, and then syndicate it and get more back than they paid for it (or so I have heard in the rumour mill.) Send in a reasonalbe bill for the single use of that image (which they have already used) and they may well just cough up as a matter of course.

There's a principle here, and that is that copyright should not be stolen without risk.

Chevvyf1
12th July 2012, 11:46 AM
I do not title my photos and even here, I do not put them into categories :eek: which makes it more difficult to find ... they do not show up on Google etc searches in images !

I thought that there is some new Copyright Law coming along, whereby anyone can use any image and should take reasonable steps to identify the owner to seek permission ...

Sadly any images, in any posts, on the internet are up for grabs, by default.

kidslateinlife
12th July 2012, 01:21 PM
If anyone get's a chance, would you mind looking at the link, my image is the yellow lamborghini.

Would it be worth pursuing this kind of individual/ company? for future reference


http://dannypeled.com/tag/vidmind

Ian
12th July 2012, 01:28 PM
This thread is very interesting - missed it first time around.

A quite well known software company stole a full resolution sample image from us, used it in their marketing materials (the sheer cheek - it was in their press release pack at Focus on Imaging, like I wouldn't see it, eh?) and told us that Web images were 'fair game'. Unfortunately we haven't yet figured out how to deal with this copyright theft as ordinary lawyers don't seem interested and even advised us that if we pursued them we could be counter-sued :(

Ian

kidslateinlife
12th July 2012, 02:17 PM
Unfortunately we haven't yet figured out how to deal with this copyright theft as ordinary lawyers don't seem interested and even advised us that if we pursued them we could be counter-sued :(

Ian

I fail to understand how you could be counter-sued ???, maybe liable for cost's in the event of losing a case, which again I fail to see how you could lose....... wrong lawyer is the problem.

I don't really have much of an idea how much an image is worth, and what rate should be paid for specific images, I am aware that an image of a celeb in a compromising situation is worth a fair bit, but then I would not post it on the web.

As an amateur/ hobbyist, I am fairly flattered by the use of my image, but still awaiting a sale on my images picked up by getty, which will be more of a personal success rather than a financial one.

Chevvyf1
12th July 2012, 03:06 PM
This thread is very interesting - missed it first time around.

A quite well known software company stole a full resolution sample image from us, used it in their marketing materials (the sheer cheek - it was in their press release pack at Focus on Imaging, like I wouldn't see it, eh?) and told us that Web images were 'fair game'. Unfortunately we haven't yet figured out how to deal with this copyright theft as ordinary lawyers don't seem interested and even advised us that if we pursued them we could be counter-sued :(

Ian


Um! Ian, I wonder ... if said "Software company" might be the same one, who back in early 1980's sent their CEO and 3 Legal Advisers to a "CRITICAL" meeting with a certain Bank, in their City Offices ... whereby said Software Company CEO offered "You pay us 1.3m OR we sue you for all the un-licensed copies of Wincows 3.1 ... "

I rather suspect it is :D ... Trouble is your unlikely to fly out to their HQ with a few Lawyers ... and they KNOW IT ... SIZE MATTERS !

Ian
12th July 2012, 03:10 PM
No, it's a much smaller company and as far as I know they only have one product and in my view any self-respecting photographer wouldn't need or want their product. One of their staff frequently attends press events masquerading as a journalist.

Ian

Ian
12th July 2012, 03:14 PM
I fail to understand how you could be counter-sued ???, maybe liable for cost's in the event of losing a case, which again I fail to see how you could lose....... wrong lawyer is the problem.

I don't really have much of an idea how much an image is worth, and what rate should be paid for specific images, I am aware that an image of a celeb in a compromising situation is worth a fair bit, but then I would not post it on the web.

As an amateur/ hobbyist, I am fairly flattered by the use of my image, but still awaiting a sale on my images picked up by getty, which will be more of a personal success rather than a financial one.

We valued the image using Alamy based on the usage they got out of it - it was around 2,000. We were warned that they could counter-sue for sullying their name or something like that. I'm not legal so I can't explain it precisely. I think the lawyers we consulted basically weren't interested.

If you can recommend a good copyright lawyer who would be able to advise a small company like us, please get in touch! The other party didn't even try to avoid the accusation either. We were offered something like 100 to settle.

Ian

Chevvyf1
12th July 2012, 03:58 PM
Ian, in preparing YOUR case you need to have copies of their "Marketing materials" together with, evidence of the duration of use and "distribution" and can you prove it was "full Res sample image used".

It rather smacks of "little person wearing many "hats" - did not want to spend much of his budget on an image ... after all who would notice ... :eek: or even take any notice ... :eek:

and the Counter writ ... was the person in the offending Software company aware of the photo used ? Counter writ is an aggessive "go away" ...

ps dont forget to add research in support of claim to your fees :D

Chevvyf1
12th July 2012, 04:00 PM
... as ordinary lawyers don't seem interested
Ian

Ermmm Ordinary Lawyers ... work in the High Street, do Divorce, Conveyancing (if there is a house sale:) ) and do a little Criminal Advocacy ... THEY often dont know how to find the BOOKS on IP; Copyright; Trademarks & Logo ...

Thnking about it your photos ALWAYS have a Copyright on ? did this one ?

kidslateinlife
12th July 2012, 04:28 PM
Ian,

Dependant on how much work you wish to put in, two useful links

www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-enforce-c4e-pcc-response.pdf (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-enforce-c4e-pcc-response.pdf)


and

www.epuk.org/Opinion/994/stolen-photographs-what-to-do?pg=8 (http://www.epuk.org/Opinion/994/stolen-photographs-what-to-do?pg=8)

Interesting reading!

richardlongley
12th July 2012, 04:56 PM
We valued the image using Alamy based on the usage they got out of it - it was around 2,000. We were warned that they could counter-sue for sullying their name or something like that. I'm not legal so I can't explain it precisely. I think the lawyers we consulted basically weren't interested.

If you can recommend a good copyright lawyer who would be able to advise a small company like us, please get in touch! The other party didn't even try to avoid the accusation either. We were offered something like 100 to settle.

Ian

Sounds like a classic negotiation to me.

The reason that lawyers would not be very kene is that their fees would be more than the value you are seeking.
Equally, any comapny that takes an image without permission would be advised not to pursue it through court, but to offer a settlement.

The 100 offer sounds like a cheeky first attempt, I would have gone back to them and suggested a compromise of 1000

Chevvyf1
12th July 2012, 05:03 PM
Ian,

Dependant on how much work you wish to put in, two useful links

www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-enforce-c4e-pcc-response.pdf (http://www.ipo.gov.uk/hargreaves-enforce-c4e-pcc-response.pdf)


and

www.epuk.org/Opinion/994/stolen-photographs-what-to-do?pg=8 (http://www.epuk.org/Opinion/994/stolen-photographs-what-to-do?pg=8)

Interesting reading!



VERY VERY INTERESTING READING :D:D:D Thank You :D

Melaka
12th July 2012, 05:29 PM
A former joint owner of my boat had some of his images used in advertisements by a sailmaker. It cost the sailmaker a new set of sails for the boat worth about 2,500. It's almost always worth pursuing any breach of copyright. It happens to me occasionally and I've always received payment in the end.

LMGruchy
12th July 2012, 05:48 PM
Hmn, I can't understand how to work that app thingy but I don't suppose people have nicked any of my stuff because it's not good enough.

sponner
12th July 2012, 06:31 PM
Alamy are billing the newspaper for the use of my image at the end of the month.

I have my reservations about what has gone on as it was published in October 2011, I know they have long invoice times but this seems excessive.

Anyway it looks like I will get paid for that one, it will be nowhere near 100 though, probably appropriate given the subject matter :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044433/Poundworld-launches-new-assault-high-street-express-stores.html

Ian
12th July 2012, 07:26 PM
A former joint owner of my boat had some of his images used in advertisements by a sailmaker. It cost the sailmaker a new set of sails for the boat worth about 2,500. It's almost always worth pursuing any breach of copyright. It happens to me occasionally and I've always received payment in the end.

The problem is that the company I was dealing with were completely uncooperative - their attitude was we don't care. Your friend clearly had a decent person or persons to deal with who knew when they were in the wrong.

Ian

Ian
12th July 2012, 07:29 PM
Ermmm Ordinary Lawyers ... work in the High Street, do Divorce, Conveyancing (if there is a house sale:) ) and do a little Criminal Advocacy ... THEY often dont know how to find the BOOKS on IP; Copyright; Trademarks & Logo ...

Thnking about it your photos ALWAYS have a Copyright on ? did this one ?

It was on a new camera samples gallery. The page of thumbnails linking to full resolotion images had a copyright notice and the images had (have - they are still there) copyright notices in the exif metadata. We are fully covered. But legal advice and potential costs put us off pursuing the matter.

I would be keen to resume the legal case if I had better advice...

Ian

Nick Temple-Fry
12th July 2012, 07:44 PM
Alamy are billing the newspaper for the use of my image at the end of the month.

I have my reservations about what has gone on as it was published in October 2011, I know they have long invoice times but this seems excessive.

Anyway it looks like I will get paid for that one, it will be nowhere near 100 though, probably appropriate given the subject matter :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044433/Poundworld-launches-new-assault-high-street-express-stores.html

If it was sold through the Newspaper scheme and only used on-line - then about $6.22 , if it was used in print then say $35. So keep your expectations low - may well take several months to become 'cleared' (be paid).

Nick

sponner
12th July 2012, 09:23 PM
yeah I have low expectations Nick.

Having said that it is a snapshot in a shopping centre so anything is a bonus :)

I am happy with Alamy overall, sales range from a dollar or so for novel use to about 100 for one license, just not suire how good their sales reporting is.

@ Ian I would definitely look to take that forward. The images I have that are ripped off regularly sell for pence so it isn't worth chasing, you situation sounds different as it isn't an image offered for sale at a low price point.

jdal
13th July 2012, 05:35 PM
I used the app mentioned in the original post and the first two Flickr shots I tried came up with hits. A shot of a Cheviot Goat an American gun enthusiast/hunter had nicked on this (http://www.ianharford.com/calendar/5472-welsh-billy-goat-hunting-with-cervus-uk/)page. It would be hard to get a worse website for my images. Another of an Old English Sheepdog is all over the place on pet breeding type sites.

None of them attributed.

I'm going to have to stick watermarks on my images so at least the barstewards will have to do some work.

sponner
13th July 2012, 05:39 PM
I don't know if this is right (I don't really use flikr much) but
aren't tags and joining subject specific groups likely to increase teh
chances of a thief finding your image

Chevvyf1
13th July 2012, 06:19 PM
I used the app mentioned in the original post and the first two Flickr shots I tried came up with hits. ...

I'm going to have to stick watermarks on my images so at least the barstewards will have to do some work.

I like the "smart" Watermarks - I will try and find the example ... and post it here :)

timg
13th July 2012, 06:19 PM
I don't know if this is right (I don't really use flikr much) but aren't tags and joining subject specific groups likely to increase teh chances of a thief finding your image

Yes, but it's not exactly a flickr problem... the more you spread your images about the more people will see them and the greater likelihood of it getting pinched... unfortunately, the only way to be sure it doesn't happen is to not post your photos anywhere.

Chevvyf1
13th July 2012, 06:20 PM
I don't know if this is right (I don't really use flikr much) but
aren't tags and joining subject specific groups likely to increase teh
chances of a thief finding your image


YES ! :D it sure is/does

timg
13th July 2012, 06:24 PM
It would be hard to get a worse website for my images.

Indeed, you have my sympathy on that one...

jdal
13th July 2012, 06:55 PM
I like the "smart" Watermarks - I will try and find the example ... and post it here :)

Cheers, and I'm interested, but if these are the invisible embedded digital watermarks, the trouble is it only makes it easier to prove it's your image. You could already do that by keeping RAW originals on your computer. The problem is the hassle and cost of it. At least the visible ones force people to either attribute or spend time manipulating the images.

Either way the easiest way stop people purloining your work is to never show it to anyone. :mad:

LMGruchy
13th July 2012, 09:07 PM
I'm sure I've seen similar mountain goat pictures in commercial magazines, which means that has commercial value which he's ruining. I think I will try to add some watermark to my stuff in future.

Chevvyf1
14th July 2012, 09:08 PM
I like these Copyright marks :D

http://farbspiel-photo.com/learn/hdr-cookbook/creative-watermarking

Greytop
14th July 2012, 09:12 PM
I like these Copyright marks :D

http://farbspiel-photo.com/learn/hdr-cookbook/creative-watermarking

Looks a pretty neat package Chevvy.

Nick Temple-Fry
14th July 2012, 11:28 PM
I like these Copyright marks :D

http://farbspiel-photo.com/learn/hdr-cookbook/creative-watermarking

'hmm

Quite a complicated way of creating an ineffectual watermark.

Why do we mark are images - to detir theft.

Does a watermark which is not obvious detir theft, reach your own conclusion.

Practically every picture I post has a watermark, they are easy to make, just type your text onto a clear layer and adjust the opacity to suit the image. (for GIMP users try Watermark.scm from the plugin library).

Unfortunately copyright is a lost battle, there are just too many people who think that having paid for the internet connection they have a right to the content.

Nick

David M
15th July 2012, 12:22 AM
Finding the right lawyer is key. I used to know a pro who made a nice second income from pursuing copyright violations.

SteelD
15th July 2012, 06:51 AM
I like these Copyright marks :D

http://farbspiel-photo.com/learn/hdr-cookbook/creative-watermarking
An interesting technique and, as a technical exercise, it is very good. However, this approach is subtle and blends too easily into the image and thus only becomes useful to prove copyright after the image has been stolen but does little to deter theft in the first place. It also means a lot of extra work for every image which is an overhead I can't afford. From time to time, I update my watermark and it's also pain to re-watermark original images for consistency.

I use a WordPress template for my Mind's Eye (http://www.minds-eye.org.uk/)web site where the watermark is dynamic. In other words, the watermark is applied by the server at display time and the original image on the server remains untouched. This means I can change the watermark or its position at any time with little effort. I also have it set with a threshold where it doesn't watermark small images but only those go above a certain size.