-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
I was about to buy a new A6500 screen protector..
- Thread starter CE3
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sony a6500
TravelForPictures
Active member
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 139
Contact the company direct?
It looks like they already removed the image from Amazon (without even contacting them).
I found it again on eBay, though:
I just sent them this message via Amazon:
__________
Hello, I'm writing in regards to ASIN B075TX14B9
This morning I discovered my image was being used to market this product. I believe the image has since been removed. I will grant you permission to use this image for this purpose if you agree to send me a screen protector. I believe this is a very reasonable request. In the future, please remember to ask permission before using copyrighted images, or license images for commercial use through other legal channels.
Thank you
__________
In this particular case I'm mostly just amused by the way in which I found this photo (about 5 seconds from buying the product). But surely this company has enough pennies to throw at a photographer to legally license a stock image. This time I don't really care (I give them points for using an actual A6500 photo lol), but I guess I should start doing reverse image searches, as there are a lot of scenarios where something like this would really tick me off.
And they better send me a free screen protector!
I found it again on eBay, though:
I just sent them this message via Amazon:
__________
Hello, I'm writing in regards to ASIN B075TX14B9
This morning I discovered my image was being used to market this product. I believe the image has since been removed. I will grant you permission to use this image for this purpose if you agree to send me a screen protector. I believe this is a very reasonable request. In the future, please remember to ask permission before using copyrighted images, or license images for commercial use through other legal channels.
Thank you
__________
In this particular case I'm mostly just amused by the way in which I found this photo (about 5 seconds from buying the product). But surely this company has enough pennies to throw at a photographer to legally license a stock image. This time I don't really care (I give them points for using an actual A6500 photo lol), but I guess I should start doing reverse image searches, as there are a lot of scenarios where something like this would really tick me off.
And they better send me a free screen protector!
Last edited:
skanter
Forum Pro
I woud tell them you will license to them for at least $100 - or remove it immediately. Might be worth it to them not to change their ad.
Thanks guys. They responded to my message saying they "respect the intellectual property rights of others" and asked me to provide proof that the photo belongs to me, which I did.
Then they complimented my photography and offered to give me a "99% off code" for the item, excluding any shipping charges from Amazon (LOL). I haven't replied yet.
I'm a Prime member so I won't be charged shipping for the order, but it's a little insulting to read them say they won't cover shipping for a cheap piece of tempered glass, and that they respect intellectual property rights when they clearly didn't in this case.
But considering the way this particular image was used, and the fact that it's a bit of a take it or leave it photo for me, I'm just going to chalk this up as a reminder that we photographers need to take the time to occasionally reverse image search our photos, and let the matter go.
You have to choose your battles, right?
Then they complimented my photography and offered to give me a "99% off code" for the item, excluding any shipping charges from Amazon (LOL). I haven't replied yet.
I'm a Prime member so I won't be charged shipping for the order, but it's a little insulting to read them say they won't cover shipping for a cheap piece of tempered glass, and that they respect intellectual property rights when they clearly didn't in this case.
But considering the way this particular image was used, and the fact that it's a bit of a take it or leave it photo for me, I'm just going to chalk this up as a reminder that we photographers need to take the time to occasionally reverse image search our photos, and let the matter go.
You have to choose your battles, right?
Last edited:
Where did they find your photo?
Was there copyright info?
Is there such a thing as an automatic reverse searcher, or how do you plan on doing these occasional searches?
Maybe their margin is thn?
They actually lose money giving 99% off vs 100% lol, unless if they have some structured payments system with Amazon, dunno if such things exist.
Was there copyright info?
Is there such a thing as an automatic reverse searcher, or how do you plan on doing these occasional searches?
Maybe their margin is thn?
They actually lose money giving 99% off vs 100% lol, unless if they have some structured payments system with Amazon, dunno if such things exist.
Last edited:
Dirk W
Veteran Member
Wow, not nice! But I guess it happens. I once discovered a picture that I had taken and that had been posted on Facebook in the biggest newspaper of the country where I live. They had cut off my name that I had put in the corner of the image and used my photo for a newspaper article.
Last edited:
Jeez I hate these companies and there is more and more of them , mainly overseas, that believe stealing is ok.
if i run into this situation myself, how do i prove that the photo is in fact mines? even if i put copy right info, I know that they can override the metadata. thankfully i shoot everything in RAW and i guess me proving i have the original raw file is enough,.
thanks,
if i run into this situation myself, how do i prove that the photo is in fact mines? even if i put copy right info, I know that they can override the metadata. thankfully i shoot everything in RAW and i guess me proving i have the original raw file is enough,.
thanks,
I know I posted the photo here and on my Flickr, so they probably found it via a search engine. Yes I have copyright info baked into my files, but I think that photo was taken on my first outing with the A6500 and it might not have been in the camera yet.
I'm going to try Tin Eye for reverse image searches soon. Google is another option. Nothing is automatic as far as I know.
Something like this would be significantly more upsetting to me. Did you contact the paper?
Last edited:
Dirk W
Veteran Member
I did. I emailed them that it was my picture. They just put my name under the image on their article online. No reply, no apology, nothing. I didn't follow up on it.
Last edited:
You should send them an official sounding letter to get some concessions lol.
Manual enforcement isn't sustainable though; a lot has to do with the technical side of things. If people can just save or screen-grab, then they'll do it. Probably 99%+ of the time, they get away with it.
Hence some post only low-res, but now online media only needs low-res. Maybe automated searching with a script or cloud service is the most practical way currently.
Manual enforcement isn't sustainable though; a lot has to do with the technical side of things. If people can just save or screen-grab, then they'll do it. Probably 99%+ of the time, they get away with it.
Hence some post only low-res, but now online media only needs low-res. Maybe automated searching with a script or cloud service is the most practical way currently.
Sorry to hear that man and I would be very upset about it too. Just a suggestion. Since this company relies on amazon and eBay to sell their product, it maybe more effective to file a complaint against amazon and eBay directly. What they did is probably against the terms of the seller agreement with amazon and eBay and who knows, amazon or eBay might threaten to take them out of their channel.
If it were me, I wouldn’t accept their counter offer. I would imagine that $10 isn’t significant to you and what they did is very harmful to the photography community. If they really respect IP, it’s their responsibility to make sure that they get the right to whatever they use.
--
-Daniel
If it were me, I wouldn’t accept their counter offer. I would imagine that $10 isn’t significant to you and what they did is very harmful to the photography community. If they really respect IP, it’s their responsibility to make sure that they get the right to whatever they use.
--
-Daniel
Last edited:
DaFireMedic
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,549
- Reaction score
- 936
I’ve had this happen with video footage. A friend has seen at least one of his photographs in advertisements without his knowledge or permission.
It’d be nice if people....maybe....asked?
It’d be nice if people....maybe....asked?
Last edited:
Dirk W
Veteran Member
I agree, yeah as attorney I do this kind of things professionally but don't like to take my work home
If a big newspaper does these kind of things that lives from copyrighted work itself, there is not much excuse for them of not knowing IMHO.
REDunnLev
Leading Member
- Messages
- 732
- Reaction score
- 418
That’s funny. Did you have a screen protector when you took the picture. Of all the screen protectors you chose the one that was illegally using your picture.
I once saw one of my stock photos used, in a Forbes rankings slideshow I just so happened to be clicking through, without credit to me. That made me mad, but I still got my pennies for it.
I once saw one of my stock photos used, in a Forbes rankings slideshow I just so happened to be clicking through, without credit to me. That made me mad, but I still got my pennies for it.
davect01
Veteran Member
Nice find. You definitely need to contact them even if you are not asking for money
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum