-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Copyright Violations In Blogging>>>>>>>
- Thread starter John B. Holbrook II
- Start date
And I really don't see why you felt a need to respond to me here.
--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
Ron Kruger
Senior Member
As far as being reasonable or practical in these matters, I have some experience.
I owned a design patent on a product, and as soon as it became popular, many people came out with products with similar (but slightly different) names that featured one slight variation on my design. I found I had no legal recourse because of these differences, which were so slight, the average consumer probably though it was the same thing.
I've had quite a few articles and pictures stolen from me. I'm not sure how many, but every once in a while, I Google my name and find unauthorized used by theives too dumb to even remove my name. No telling how many are floating around that I can't find because they have removed my name.
They don't steal them directly from me, but from newspapers and magazines that post my stuff on their websites as teasers to solicit subscriptions to their print publications.
The first couple of times it happend, I tried collecting, and when that didn't work, consulted a lawyer. The bottom line is people dumb enough to steal don't have any resources to collect, so the expenses of litigation (which are considerable) makes the financial loss of litigation much, much greater than the "principle" of the thing. If a big company would steal from me, sure, I'd sue, but they are not that stupid.
Even just getting a lawyer to write a letter (which is always the first step in these things) for a few hundred dollars is a big loss. They will remove the item, but that's as far as it goes, and you're out an extra few hundred dollars, which usually is as much or more than I made from having it published in the first place. It's not good business. Law is a much more lucrative profession.
All of the sites that have used my stuff can't even keep their websites going for very long, whether I threaten them or not, because stupid dishonesty is a pervasive ingredent to failure.
Some honestly (I believe) didn't even realize they couldn't just copy and use anything they find on the net, where everything is "free."
The laws are on the books, but I've found utilizing them is a prospect that sounds high and mighty in theory, but totally inpractical in practice.
--
In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger
I owned a design patent on a product, and as soon as it became popular, many people came out with products with similar (but slightly different) names that featured one slight variation on my design. I found I had no legal recourse because of these differences, which were so slight, the average consumer probably though it was the same thing.
I've had quite a few articles and pictures stolen from me. I'm not sure how many, but every once in a while, I Google my name and find unauthorized used by theives too dumb to even remove my name. No telling how many are floating around that I can't find because they have removed my name.
They don't steal them directly from me, but from newspapers and magazines that post my stuff on their websites as teasers to solicit subscriptions to their print publications.
The first couple of times it happend, I tried collecting, and when that didn't work, consulted a lawyer. The bottom line is people dumb enough to steal don't have any resources to collect, so the expenses of litigation (which are considerable) makes the financial loss of litigation much, much greater than the "principle" of the thing. If a big company would steal from me, sure, I'd sue, but they are not that stupid.
Even just getting a lawyer to write a letter (which is always the first step in these things) for a few hundred dollars is a big loss. They will remove the item, but that's as far as it goes, and you're out an extra few hundred dollars, which usually is as much or more than I made from having it published in the first place. It's not good business. Law is a much more lucrative profession.
All of the sites that have used my stuff can't even keep their websites going for very long, whether I threaten them or not, because stupid dishonesty is a pervasive ingredent to failure.
Some honestly (I believe) didn't even realize they couldn't just copy and use anything they find on the net, where everything is "free."
The laws are on the books, but I've found utilizing them is a prospect that sounds high and mighty in theory, but totally inpractical in practice.
--
In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger
Richard Katris
Senior Member
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
Richard Katris aka Chanan
NottsPhoto
Senior Member
+1.
We now also go after the ISP. I am not that familiar with US copyright law, but under the EU law the provider of the mechanism for the production of the infringing copies can be targeted as well... technically they are the publishers.
The ISP generally pulls the sites pronto.... and then we can take a position on the situation....
One thing that we have been playing with is giving the abuser the opportunity to purchase a retrospective licence by issuing a invoice.... based upon our published terms.... When they dont pay we can go straight to a online claim via our local (UK) county court for non-payment of a invoice.... which costs £35 or so...
With larger companies we also always point out section 22 of the EU act, which allows for criminal conviction if the abuse has been done in the course of a business... and also specifically allows us to go after the employees of that company... this has had a remarkeable effect in terms of our collection rate...
Its the small niggly bugger with no cash that are the problems... and the muppets who say that we shouldnt put stuff online if we dont want abuse are pretty far removed from reality.
I think that we need to be more creative with how we use the legislation...
--
http://www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.
We now also go after the ISP. I am not that familiar with US copyright law, but under the EU law the provider of the mechanism for the production of the infringing copies can be targeted as well... technically they are the publishers.
The ISP generally pulls the sites pronto.... and then we can take a position on the situation....
One thing that we have been playing with is giving the abuser the opportunity to purchase a retrospective licence by issuing a invoice.... based upon our published terms.... When they dont pay we can go straight to a online claim via our local (UK) county court for non-payment of a invoice.... which costs £35 or so...
With larger companies we also always point out section 22 of the EU act, which allows for criminal conviction if the abuse has been done in the course of a business... and also specifically allows us to go after the employees of that company... this has had a remarkeable effect in terms of our collection rate...
Its the small niggly bugger with no cash that are the problems... and the muppets who say that we shouldnt put stuff online if we dont want abuse are pretty far removed from reality.
I think that we need to be more creative with how we use the legislation...
--
http://www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.
"We now also go after the ISP. I am not that familiar with US copyright law, but under the EU law the provider of the mechanism for the production of the infringing copies can be targeted as well... technically they are the publishers. "
In the US, if an ISP plays by the "safe-harbor" provisions of the DMCA it relieves them of the risk of liability. That is the reason US based ISPs respond to DMCA "take-down" notices.
Back when the issue of ISP liability first surfaced ISPs argued to Congress to protect them (and by extention the growth of the internet); that they should be treated like telephone companies. Not responsible for the content of the conversation. Content creators/providers were more concerned about protecting their content.
There was a compromise. Congress set up the take-down (and put back up) mechanism that exists today. It's not mandatory to comply with these provisions. However, if an ISP does use the framework they don't have to worry about getting sued based on the content. They are protected. So it's hard to find an ISP in the US that doesn't respond to proper take-down notices.
In the US, if an ISP plays by the "safe-harbor" provisions of the DMCA it relieves them of the risk of liability. That is the reason US based ISPs respond to DMCA "take-down" notices.
Back when the issue of ISP liability first surfaced ISPs argued to Congress to protect them (and by extention the growth of the internet); that they should be treated like telephone companies. Not responsible for the content of the conversation. Content creators/providers were more concerned about protecting their content.
There was a compromise. Congress set up the take-down (and put back up) mechanism that exists today. It's not mandatory to comply with these provisions. However, if an ISP does use the framework they don't have to worry about getting sued based on the content. They are protected. So it's hard to find an ISP in the US that doesn't respond to proper take-down notices.
ABA DABA
Senior Member
The logic is that if you don't want anything stolen(borrowed) you take steps to protect it. Locked vehicle, locked front door of home or apartment etc. in your case you placed out in cyber space for everyone to see,ergo unprotected, copyright means nothing in todays society.
Think like a counterfitter making copies of currency.
--
ABA DABA
ABA DABA
Senior Member
If it makes you feel any better I too posted to the http://www until I realized the what you have descovered. I dumped everything I had out there. Not pleased but not concerned anymore.
--
ABA DABA
--
ABA DABA
Think like a counterfitter making copies of currency.
However, even if the car is unlocked, the police will still pursue the criminal, and if he is caught, the courts will still prosecute. The law does not require a lock to have been in place.
Your argument is akin to telling a **** victim, "Your dress was too short."
--
RDKirk
'TANSTAAFL: The only unbreakable rule in photography.'
NottsPhoto
Senior Member
...and not a professional photographer...
--
http://www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.
Graham Snook
Senior Member
Ok, read what I said again.
It looks like a "press shot", a shot that is given to the press to publicise their product. Not a shot by the "press".
I work full time for a magazine that's how I know advertising press images are available to free.
Contact the press office, or phone up any PR office worth it's salt and ask them to supply a photo of their clients products for your publication or your (editorial) website, and tah diddly at ta tah you get a professional image of their product, no need to credit the photographer, no need to pay.
That makes it free in my book
The photographer got paid for his work, they are happy. The company gets editorial coverage, they are happy. The publication or website get pretty images to use, and they too are happy.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://grahamsnook.wordpress.com/
Richard Katris
Senior Member
I think of a "press" photo as one done by a press photographer, ie: news photographer working for a paper. I think of a PR photo as a publicity release photo, and agree they are generally paid and supplied by persons wanting the publicity and normally supplied without limitations upon that usage in order to promote the object/widget they want promoted....though I imagine if the image was later used in an unrelated manner that did nothing to advertise the product that even they might then object to its usage.
Interesting idea....does being released as a PR photo to advertise widgets.....if it is later used in an article about the pictured area in the background and used in an article or book that relates to the background only...and does not mention or relate to the widgets for which it was originally supplied....would the agency or even photographer have a case to ask for additional compensation from the new user for this new unintended usage? I would think so.
Say an advertising shot of Marilyn Monroe...standing next to and pointing at a toaster had been made years ago for GE. Would a usage of a closeup of her above the waist.....not showing the toaster....and being sold as an art print of Marilyn....be considered a legitimate usage of that PR image?
In other words....an image released for a specific PR purpose...does it become public domain? or is the release for usage normally tied to the product it was intended to promote? I would sure word my contract that it had to be used to advert of the toaster, and that any other uses were mine.....
Always good to limit usages to the client's needs ONLY.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
Interesting idea....does being released as a PR photo to advertise widgets.....if it is later used in an article about the pictured area in the background and used in an article or book that relates to the background only...and does not mention or relate to the widgets for which it was originally supplied....would the agency or even photographer have a case to ask for additional compensation from the new user for this new unintended usage? I would think so.
Say an advertising shot of Marilyn Monroe...standing next to and pointing at a toaster had been made years ago for GE. Would a usage of a closeup of her above the waist.....not showing the toaster....and being sold as an art print of Marilyn....be considered a legitimate usage of that PR image?
In other words....an image released for a specific PR purpose...does it become public domain? or is the release for usage normally tied to the product it was intended to promote? I would sure word my contract that it had to be used to advert of the toaster, and that any other uses were mine.....
Always good to limit usages to the client's needs ONLY.
--
Richard Katris aka Chanan
Ron Kruger
Senior Member
Excellent point, Richard, and that probably explains why nearly all the product shots I've seen accompanying press releases over the years are studio shots with indiscript or white backgrounds. I always figured it was done to maximize attention to product detail, but it probably is to prevent missuse of the photo as well.
In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger
--
In the end, the only things that matter are the people we help and the people we hurt. http://pa.photoshelter.com/user/ronkruger
NottsPhoto
Senior Member
There is usually a distinction between a PR image... and a advertising image.. and somethign in the public domain..
1) A PR image is intended for free editorial useage.... The licence under which it was produced may be limited to editorial use, and ergo is not in itself intended for either direct commercial exploitation, (Ie via resale of the image in whole or in part.) or for indirect commercial exploitation.. (Ie as a part of a paid for advertising campign.) Editorial use refers effectivley to use in relation to review or comment by third parties.
2) A advertising image is only intended for publication in relation to the commisioner for commercial exploitation. (Rather like a commision for a magazine or newspaper... once they have published the material in their respective journal.. the image is not in the public domain. (The only real difference is that the rates tend to be higher..))
3) A advertising image may be released by the copyrigh holder with a editorial or PR licence... but that is at the discretion of the copyright holder... (I would suggest that this is pretty common practice...)
4) none of the above is the same as placing it into the public domain... which is to effectivley release the image with no restriction on its use whatseover by any thrid party.
I would think that taking a older advertising image, and then cropping it and reselling this material, would be outside the scope of its issuance by the copyright holder, as direct commercial exploitation BY A THIRD PARTY was not permitted under the original licence that it was issued under... which was a for free reproduction for editorial use... or for exclusive commercial exploitation by the commisioner.
This issue is actually directly addressed under the secondary infringments of the 1988 Design, patent and copyright act in the EU which makes special criminal allowances for copyright infringments in the course of a business or for profit... (Section 22 in particular..)
--
http://www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.
1) A PR image is intended for free editorial useage.... The licence under which it was produced may be limited to editorial use, and ergo is not in itself intended for either direct commercial exploitation, (Ie via resale of the image in whole or in part.) or for indirect commercial exploitation.. (Ie as a part of a paid for advertising campign.) Editorial use refers effectivley to use in relation to review or comment by third parties.
2) A advertising image is only intended for publication in relation to the commisioner for commercial exploitation. (Rather like a commision for a magazine or newspaper... once they have published the material in their respective journal.. the image is not in the public domain. (The only real difference is that the rates tend to be higher..))
3) A advertising image may be released by the copyrigh holder with a editorial or PR licence... but that is at the discretion of the copyright holder... (I would suggest that this is pretty common practice...)
4) none of the above is the same as placing it into the public domain... which is to effectivley release the image with no restriction on its use whatseover by any thrid party.
I would think that taking a older advertising image, and then cropping it and reselling this material, would be outside the scope of its issuance by the copyright holder, as direct commercial exploitation BY A THIRD PARTY was not permitted under the original licence that it was issued under... which was a for free reproduction for editorial use... or for exclusive commercial exploitation by the commisioner.
This issue is actually directly addressed under the secondary infringments of the 1988 Design, patent and copyright act in the EU which makes special criminal allowances for copyright infringments in the course of a business or for profit... (Section 22 in particular..)
--
http://www.pageonephotography.co.uk
Striving hard to be the man that my dog thinks I am.
F
f8BeThereToo
Guest
The first step should be a demand letter written by you. Tell them what you want and that if they do not comply the issue will be transferred to your attorney for possible legal action. Quote the copyright regulation that details the possible financial penalties for copyright infringement; it's a very good way to get their attention. If you need help with writing such a letter and belong to ASMP its legal advisor will offer suggestions for drafting a letter free of charge.
If you regularly have images stolen then it is well worth the time to come up with such a letter since it can be used again, albeit with certain details altered.
Graham Snook
Senior Member
Most press/PR shots are usually downloaded after accepting the terms and conditions, or if they are Emailed out then when requesting images you have to specify the use. Either way if you are using the editorial images you'll only have the right to use that image for approved purposes. What a third party does with that image isn't your problem unless they also copy your work in the process, but you should have a copyright statement somewhere in your publication or on your website.
If a third party were to use that image and/or crop it, they would indeed be infringing the Uk's CD&P act 1988, and I guess US copyright Law as well.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://grahamsnook.wordpress.com/
If a third party were to use that image and/or crop it, they would indeed be infringing the Uk's CD&P act 1988, and I guess US copyright Law as well.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Always give the client a vertical-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://grahamsnook.wordpress.com/
txabi
Leading Member
Have you ever considered making your site a flash site? It's terribly easy to steal an image from a photographers site, just right click and save. On the contrary, with a flash site a user can't save the page or right click to save the image (only flash options would be revealed). Making your photography website in Adobe Flash would make it very easy for one to stop others from stealing his/her property.
In truth, they could still print screen and steal it that way, for which you could overlay a copyright notice as a watermark, but in any case, eliminating the option of right click-save with a flash site would already cut 90% of the attempts to steal it. Je crois
In truth, they could still print screen and steal it that way, for which you could overlay a copyright notice as a watermark, but in any case, eliminating the option of right click-save with a flash site would already cut 90% of the attempts to steal it. Je crois
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum