Photo used without attribution.

DaveNewcastle

DaveNewcastle

Suspended / Banned
Messages
39
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
A friend recently posted this on Facebook and I asked him if I could repeat it here because I wondered if you helpful people might have any advice for him:

A few folks had mentioned they thought some of my photos were being used by a shop in the Grainger Market. I was walking past today, so I thought I'd ask them about it (see, I told you I would eventually Gemma).

The staff say the photos were taken by their boss (he wasn't around to ask directly). Apparently he’s a photographer so it must be true.

When I showed them the photo on my phone, they said that lots of people take photos from that location. When I pointed out that clouds tend to move, and the Baltic change their logo, they said I'd have to speak to the boss when he’s next in.

To be fair, all my stuff on Flickr is Creative Commons Attribution licence. So it’s free to use as long as you credit where it came from. If their boss really does claim he took them, I’m not sure what happens next.
Click to expand...

Here's my friend's photo:
2830807299_bde188ee1b_z.jpg


And here's the photo the shop's boss apparently took, on a mug:
mug.jpg


I can't help but think that the shop's boss didn't take an identical photo and chose to process it in exactly the same way but I've no idea what he should do. He's said he would have been completely fine with it if they'd attributed him as they should have so I don't think it's about them making money off his work as much as them being dishonest about it.
 
The exif data will prove ownership.

Presumably the shop manager will have it? :)
 
kendo1 said:
The exif data will prove ownership.
Click to expand...

no it wont if its been changed.... and how on earth is he going to see it anyway... the shop owner isnt going to invite him in to look..

my first though is.. silly you putting your pics out there free to use wiht no watermark.. your just asking people to rip you off... second thought is.... I hope you didnt pay for that mug to show us ? :) third thought.. collar the shop owner.. see what he has to say in person.
 
Your friend's exif data will prove ownership.

I'll bump this until someone with more knowledge comes along.
This misuse of someone's work is not right.
 
Last edited:
The fact you released it under a Creative Commons licence is irrelevant. You retain the copyright and allow conditional use. If someone breaks those conditions, then he has infringed copyright.
 
KIPAX said:
info can be changed..

now you answer mine.. how will exif info prove ownership of a photo ?
Click to expand...

Changing exif data leaves traces that it has been changed.
 
kendo1 said:
Changing exif data leaves traces that it has been changed.
Click to expand...

So? It doesnt tell you who stripped it. what was there before. or why they stripped it.. It's useless as proof of ownership

Having the RAW file as above is like having the negative.. again not proof that you took the picture but a lot more use than exif :)
 
KIPAX said:
So? It doesnt tell you who stripped it. what was there before. or why they stripped it.. It's useless as proof of ownership

Having the RAW file as above is like having the negative.. again not proof that you took the picture but a lot more use than exif :)
Click to expand...

The converse would obviously be true.

You are coming across as very obtuse. People come here to Talk Photography as it is a friendly community. Your attitude leaves something to be desired. I was trying to help the OP with a suggestion.
 
Jad said:
This is a problem with the digital world and posting our images all over online sites. Your friend was lucky he saw the mug and might be able to do something about it. http://johndoddato.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...

Slightly off topic, but I clicked on link thinking it was about stealing images and then realised it was John's site.

Some beautiful work there John, and I just love the Broken Bridge photo... simply stunning.

Sorry to de-rail thread, but thought it deserved praise...back to topic.

Nice mug btw...did you have to buy it though, or was it a freebie?
 
kendo1 said:
The converse would obviously be true.

You are coming across as very obtuse. People come here to Talk Photography as it is a friendly community. Your attitude leaves something to be desired. I was trying to help the OP with a suggestion.
Click to expand...

So is Tony, so enough from both of you thanks guys, lets get back on topic.
 
By posting the photo's online on Flickr establishes a date from which copyright can be claimed from. Presumably the shop owner can't prove that his photo was a prior image, or the existing merchandise differs in any way from the your friends photo.
On the other hand watching a recent BBC documentary on the greatest album cover photographs, Pennie Smith who took the cover shot for London Calling, said the amount of times that had been illegally used was ridiculous, it made her hate the photograph for a while. So legally fighting for rights might be difficult, I've no experience in this.
 
Last_Straw said:
By posting the photo's online on Flickr establishes a date from which copyright can be claimed from..
Click to expand...

Not without knowing where the poster got the file from to post.. if i steal a laptop full of pics never posted on the internet before.. and post them on flikr as mine.. does that prove the copyright to me ?


Sorry if playing the devils advocate isn't to everyones taste.. but I just want to point out that some of the things people are posting is just nonsense..

and Yv .. it is on topic so I ahve no idea why your telling me to stop ?
 
Well agreed if the images aren't yours then posting them on Flickr won't make you own copyright on them, but in the OP's case they are claiming that they took the photo, I thought that was fairly obvious.
 
Last_Straw said:
Well agreed if the images aren't yours then posting them on Flickr won't make you own copyright on them, but in the OP's case they are claiming that they took the photo, I thought that was fairly obvious.
Click to expand...

very obvious... but you ahve lost me now... the point is.. how do you prove you took the photo? surely thats a valid point in this?.. i am saying exif doesnt do it..I am also saying posting to flkr doesnt do it either..I was just using examples from the top of my head as to why its not a good way of proving you own the photo.. rather than just posting this is true because i thought it :) ..i try to explain as well :) having the raw file is a good chance I "think"

off to work now so cant reply ..
 
KIPAX said:
Not without knowing where the poster got the file from to post.. if i steal a laptop full of pics never posted on the internet before.. and post them on flikr as mine.. does that prove the copyright to me ?


Sorry if playing the devils advocate isn't to everyones taste.. but I just want to point out that some of the things people are posting is just nonsense..

and Yv .. it is on topic so I ahve no idea why your telling me to stop ?
Click to expand...

Stop the bickering bit, not the making helpful points bit :p

FWIW - I do agree with Tony, having the original file is your best method of proving ownership, though things like exif can also help as additional evidence :thumbs:
 
KIPAX said:
having the raw file is a good chance I "think"

off to work now so cant reply ..
Click to expand...


Yes, but posting it to yourself or registering it somewhere is also strengthens your case.
eg
It is important to note, that this does not prove that a work is original or created by you. But it may be useful to be able to show that the work was in your possession at a particular date, for example where someone else claims that you have copied something of theirs that was only created at a later date
Click to expand...

from
http://www.ihaveawebsite-nowwhat.co...on_for_unauthorised_use_of_your_original_work
 
Never mind the Exif stuff, it's blatantly obvious that the mug-man has ripped off the image. Any court would come to that conclusion without further evidence.

I have a relatively relaxed/realistic view of copyright in the internet age, but that's just taking the p!55. And then lying about it. I would bet that every mug in the shop has an image not taken by the owner and it would give me great personal pleasure to smash every one.

Wonder if he's got any of mine... :thinking: Unlikely LOL
 
Last_Straw said:
Yes, but posting it to yourself or registering it somewhere is also strengthens your case.
Click to expand...

Thats the way I was always told was the best way...not just photogrpahy.. in fact pre my photogrpahy i was told thats the best way.. not sure how true it is but yes would agree with you on that one :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Never mind the Exif stuff, it's blatantly obvious that the mug-man has ripped off the image. Any court would come to that conclusion without further evidence.
Click to expand...

It is blatently obvious yes.,. so much so that it would never make it to court in a million years.. however if it did.. then the court would need evidence.. not just.. we know :)
 
KIPAX said:
... then the court would need evidence.. not just.. we know :)
Click to expand...

Which would be more photos from the same place and time (or at least nearby) which any photographer would be able to provide, and the infringer would not.

End of case. Verdict - Guilty
 
KIPAX said:
It is blatently obvious yes.,. so much so that it would never make it to court in a million years.. however if it did.. then the court would need evidence.. not just.. we know :)
Click to expand...
The court would not require someone to absolutely, 100%, p=1.0, prove ownership. It would be impossible to do so. You could always contrive some unlikely but possible scenario which held the shopkeeper as the owner of the image. What would matter would be whose case was more credible.
The exif data would obviously help in establishing a case. For example, the info on camera make and model would tie with the equipment owned by the owner.
 
Take the simple approach...email the boss/shop stating they are using your image and you have the original file and you require £xx.xx for use of your image and that if no payment is made with 14 days of the date of the mail then legal proceedings will be put in place....you have to start the ball rolling somewhere.
Don't start talking about having exit details and so on, make it simple, forcefull and straight to the point.....best of luck.
 
Dave, just curious, which shop in the Grainger market is it? I know its highly unlikely but I would like to have a look and see if there's any of my stuff being used. Mines all rights reserved on Flickr so I doubt it will be used but still for piece of mind. Cheers. Nick
 
KIPAX said:
It is blatently obvious yes.,. so much so that it would never make it to court in a million years.. however if it did.. then the court would need evidence.. not just.. we know :)
Click to expand...

As it's a civil case, the evidence would need to show that, on the balance of probabilities, he took the photo.
 
And remember to take a photo of the mugs in the shop on sale.
 
Now I may be wrong here but just having checked some exif data on a few of my photos it clearly states my camera and more importantly the cameras serial number, surely thats pretty solid proof.
 
Thanks for your advice all. I don't think my friend proving he took the image would be the problem, he'll have the original with the exif that ties it to his camera. Taking a photo of the mugs being sold and sending the boss a bill sounds like a sensible plan to me. I'll be sending my friend a link to this thread and I'll let you all know what he ends up doing.

nickjohnwatson said:
Dave, just curious, which shop in the Grainger market is it?
Click to expand...

PM sent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top